- Fig 1. S6 on fire (as seen from the North/Yard sie)
Sabarmati Express arrived at Godhra station on 27th Feb 2002. Some Karsevaks hit tea vendors and forced them to shout 'Jai Shriram'. Some Ramsevak(s) molested a girl and tried to take her in the train (The Commission rejected the deposition of the girl).
Hell broke loose as the tea vendors spread word at Signal Falia about the incidents and mob started throwing stones and train came to a halt (first halt).
Train srarted and again stopped at Cabin A. Mob grew in size and came all the way on to S6 (after running along the train in the trackside after leaving about five or six coaches behind; They didn't target any coach but S6. Isn't there a catch?) stomped on S6 and rained stones on it. Some in the mob threw fire rags and S6 interior caught fire. Many passengers escaped death by alighting from the north of the train (Pl see the sketch of the spot).
- Fig 2. Inside S6
The Nanavati Commission had retired Judges Justice Nanavati and Justice K.G.Shah. However Injustice Akshay Mehta was appointed in the place of the deceased Justice Shah. AS the whole world knows, the Injustice Mehta was the culprit of releasing dozens, if not hundreds of, mass killers. ASit's evident from Tehelka tapes, Injustice Mehta was the mole of Modi whose interst is not truth but a maniac version of history.
The Report the duo produced many glaring mistakes, inconsistencies. Unfortunately the salesman Modi started selling his Theory of Godhra no sooner than the Report was submitted.
Here I tried to look at the Report objectively. One thing is sure that the perpetrators hould be punished but innocents should not be. Secondly the maniac Modi keeps repeating that this attack was a terrorist act but the hundred terorist acts committed by Sangh terrorists subsequent to Godhra were not.
COMMISSION'S "FINDINGS" (italics) & COMMENTS THEREON :
Page 12, Point 21
"We have referred to these facts as it is the case of the State Government that burning of Sabarmati Express train was a part of the larger conspiracy hatched by some religious fundamentalists at Godhra with some terrorist organizations of Jammu and Kashmir."
When did Modi government establish that there's a link between fundamentalists at Godhra and those of Jammu and Kashmir? Such sweeping generalisations are invalid if not backed by evdence. The following points 22, 23 effectively accuses the Muslims of Godhra as separatists and Hindus are nationalists.
Tune of the Report was set here.
- Fig 3. S6 was almost like this (representative snap from the Net)
Page 22, Point 31:
"Sabarmati Express train had arrived at Godhra railway station at 7.43 a.m. Its scheduled halt at Godhra railway station was of 5 minutes. During that halt of 5 minutes some incidents are stated to have happened. The Ramsevaks had a qurrel with Siddiq Bakar, a tea vendor. He was given two stick blows. Some other Ramsevaks had beaten one Siraj and also Mohmed Latika. The fourth incident stated to have happened was an attempt to abduct Sofiyabanu a Muslim girl standing on the platform by a Ramsevak by pulling her towards the train. During that halt at the Station, there was pelting of stones on the front side of the train, by the persons standing outside the station. Some passengers standing on the platform had also thrown stones towards those persons. Two police constables had made the passengers sit in the train and disperse the outsider."
“On being so instigated by some persons from the mob coach S/6 was made the target of the attack.”
If the mob wanted to attack the Karsevaks who're in almost every coach of the train, why the mob targeted S6 but they singled out S-6. WHY? It’s possible that the Karsevas who assaulted the tea vendors were in S-6 OR the molester(s) were in S-6. Other than that there’s no reason why they ignore five-six coaches and reach out to S-6 for assault?
“The State’s version is that at about that time some of the conspirators had cut the vestibule between coach S/6 and coach S/7 and also forcibly opened the door connecting S/6 it with coach S/7.”
Judges tell some stupid point that was rubbished many times in this site.
“At that time, some 6 or 7 Karsevaks had come there and asked both of them (Muslim tea vendors) to speak “Jay Shri Ram”. “
Isn't this how this S6 happened?
The high-handed nature of the rowdy Karsevaks was the reason why violent incidents happened on 27th. Secondly the Karsevas killed innocents by stabbing in the chests on way to Baroda (at Baroda and Anand).
Isn't that the Karsevakas are carrying knives in their pilgrimage to Ayodhya? Why does they want a vendor to shout 'Jai Shriram? They acted like Nazis.
This is another deposition by the girl Sofiyabano who was molested by Karsevaks on platform at Godhra.
“They were sitting near the water hut when Sabarmati Express train had arrived on the platform. Some persons wearing saffron colour Pattas (cloth belts) and shouting ‘Jay Bajrang’ had come out on the platform from the train. They had beaten one bearded person, and therefore getting frightened they had moved little away from that place. Soon thereafter one person with a saffron colour belt had put his hand on her mouth and by pulling her, had tried to take her towards the train. On her raising shouts, he had left her hand. They had thereafter moved away from that place and gone near the ticket window.”
This is the most crucial piece of deposition that explains the chain of events at Godhra but the dumbfuck Judges gave some dumbest reasons to refuse this girl's witness!
“After careful scrutiny of her evidence, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the version given by her does not appear to be true. If they had really gone to the station for going to Vadodara, they would have boarded Sabarmati Express train as it would have taken them to Vadodara earlier, but they had not done so. “
If oral submission given by everybody is true then why not the girl, whose predicament was corroborated through eye witness accounts of others? In reality, the action of the women is rationally justifiable as she can't risk travelling with rowdy elements. Moreover the train was impregnable to board. I don't understand why these morons think that the girl is lying? The dumbest reason given for refusal is this:
“If she had raised shouts to save her then they would have been heard at least by some persons who were near about but not a single vendor or anyone else has come forward to support her version.”
From the description of the incident (Sofiya's molestation), it'd not happened more than a minute. Who the hell would have noticed that momentary action-reaction in the rush of train halt? Most unfortunately the senile Judges justified the rowdy Karsevak(s) who molested her.
“As she had not stated anything to anyone about this incident till then no outsider would have come to know about the same.”
The whole Gujarat was burning and police were helping rioters in the job of murder and mayhem and this girl is supposed to have given press statements and issue sworn affidavits? How?
“That Ramsevak’s behaviour was not such as to create so much fear.”
In effect these demented Judges gave molester(s) a certificate of good conduct. Well Done!
“Salim Panwala was not present near that place and had not seen the alleged attempt to kidnap Sofiyabanu and yet he had raised a shout that a Ghanchi Muslim girl was being kidnapped by the Karsevaks. The evidence discloses that Salim Panwala had appeared on the platform at about the time when Mohmad Latika and Sidik Bakar had gone running near the open space towards the engine side. For all these reasons the Commission is inclined to take the view that such an incident had in fact not happened and probably what Sofiyabanu has stated was at the instance of Salim Panwala who had spread such a false rumour. It appears to be an attempt to pass off the false rumour as true. If what Salim Panwala had said was true, then an attempt would have been made to look for her while the train was standing on the station for about 8 to 10 minutes thereafter. No body had done that.”
It's independently proved that Panwala indeed raised fears of a Ganchi girl's abduction. That means molestation was true but nobody knew where she was (she's hiding in Booking House, that is she's hidden from view on platform).
- Fig 4. Ticketless Karsevaks occupied the seats, berths of the bonafide passengers, typical of their rowdy nature (representative snap from the Net)
Page 37 & Points 44, 47:
"Not only all the seats of that coach were occupied by the passengers but many of them were sitting and sleeping on its floor including space near latrines. There was no scope for moving inside the coach. He had given the same version about overcrowding in the train in his statement made to Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, W.R. Ratlam on 28.2.2002. What he had stated was: ‘हलने डुलने क भी थित नह थी’." & in Page 48 '.........to sit with his family members near latrines along with 20 to 25 other persons.'
How the intruders made their way with super-size petrol cans for 60 litres (Forensics were discussed in Part II).
Page 36,37 & point 44:
“There were more than 200 persons therein. Most of them were Ramsevaks.”
The TOI reports quoting VHP Convenor (Times of India 28th Feb 2002, main page) that there are 22 activists in S6.
Nanavati Commission tells that it became 'most of them (of 200) were Ramsevaks. This line was taken by the government of Gujarat that all the dead are Ramsevaks.
Nanavati Commission never cross-checked facts.
CHAIN PULLINGS AND CHAOS :
About the crucial event of chain puling and halt of the train:
“Why and from which coaches the alarm chain was pulled would not have been the issues requiring our consideration,...”
Government of Gujarat contends – as if they knew it – that the initial chain was pulled by mistake by the conspirators. What is the basis for this kahaani?
Let's observe the evidence of deponents, including the Guard Satyanarayan Varma
“chain pulling had taken place because some passengers were left behind on the platform when the train had started. The Guard had not seen any passenger who was left behind. He has stated that someone had told him that some passengers were left behind. The chain was pulled from the guard’s coach and nearby three coaches.”
SLEIGHT OF HAND BY THE JUDGES:
The Guard of Sabarmati Express Mr. Varma denies knowledge of how the chain was pulled from 'his own' cabin though he confirms that chain pulling happened in his cabin. Assistsnt driver Mukesh Pachouri also deposes that chain pulling happened from the last four coaches including the cabin of Guard. A witness Sadhvi Minaxidevi (W-1008), a Sanghi told that she saw some passengers entered S7 after the first chain pulling.
Judges readily obliged by converting these witnesses and painting the chain pull as part of 'conspiracy', which is neither proved or established.
Page 55
"It appears that Mukesh Pachori and Satyanarayan Verma had either made a mistake in stating correctly the number of one coach while giving their statements to the police or the police had made a mistake in hearing and writing that number correctly."
THIS IS SHAMELESS SLEIGHT OF HAND BY THE JUDGES.
- Fig 5. Sharp stones inside S6. No dispute of this fact.
S6 WITNESSES ON RECORD :
Maheshbhai Chaudhary (W-34) :
‘He woke up because of the noise created by the stones hitting the train. He had received injuries. He has said that shutters of the windows of his compartment had broken down as a result of the attack by the mob. According to him, about five minutes after he woke up there was smoke in the coach.’
Savitaben Sadhu (W-35) :
‘....... a window on the southern side was broken by some persons in the mob.’
(which in all likelihood I think is W8,9 or 7, pl check the sketch)..................she had seen persons in the mob throwing stones and burning rags inside the coach through those open windows. The burning rags and some liquid which was also thrown in the coach. She was able to see all that as the shutters of the window near which she was sitting had given way and the window had become open. She had also seen persons throwing some liquid in the coach that had led to smoke and fire in the coach. First there was smoke and after some time flames were seen.
Babubhai (W-36):
‘He was sitting four compartments away from the door. He has stated that a southern side window of their compartment had broken down and become open because of the attack. That had happened before there was fire and smoke in the coach.’
Dwarkabhai (W-37) :
‘He has said that stones thrown by the mobs had broken glass of the window near his seat. The metal shutter of that window had not broken down but, through the window of the adjoining compartment a stone had come inside and hit him.’
- Fig 6. Lynch mob of Ganchis (a representative snap from the Net)
Jayantibhai (W-38):
‘She was sitting in a compartment which was four or five compartments away from the toilets. He has stated that there was an attack on the train with stones. The shutters of one window of the next compartment had given way and stones were coming inside the coach through that window.’
Ramfersing (W-40):
‘He has stated that the coach was attacked and as a result thereof, large number of windows of their compartment had broken down..........He had seen stones and burning rags falling inside the coach. The burning rags had caused lot of smoke inside the coach. Pouches containing some inflammable material were also thrown inside the coach. He had seen flames of the burning rags. As stated by him all that had caused lot of smoke in the coach. Burning rags had fallen between the seats of their compartment and they had caused smoke.........He has categorically replied to the question put to him by stating that the fire in the coach was because of the things thrown inside the coach by the persons in the mob. He had not seen smoke coming from the floor of the compartment.’
Satishkumar Mishra (W-41):
‘He has stated that they had climbed on the upper berths in order to save themselves from being hit by the stones coming inside the coach through the windows which had become open.’
Ashwinbhai (W-42):
‘He was in coach no. S/5. He has stated that he could see from the window the mobs on the southern side. Some persons in those mobs were carrying ‘Kerbas’, rags, etc. (‘Kerba’ is a local term used for carboy). They had broken windows of the coach with stones and pipes. He had also seen persons in the mob pouring some liquid on rags and then throwing those burning rags inside the coach. (Most likely a Sanghi).’
- Fig 7. Lallan Prasad Chaurasia with his wounds (May-June 2002). The Commission or the Govt showed no interest to unearth truth by consulting the Burn Experts (doctors)
Lalanprasad (W-44):
‘He was returning from his native place in Uttar Pradesh with his wife, son and grand son. Because of the fire in the coach, he lost his grand son. He has stated that after the train had started it was heavily attacked with stones and those stones had broken windows of their compartment.. He had, therefore, climbed on the upper berth. He had seen stones, burning rags and other things falling inside the coach. Throwing of stones had continued for about 10 minutes and then there was smoke and flames in the compartment. He had seen some burning things falling inside the coach and had felt that the smell of it was like that of petrol.’
The Commission has not shown interest to consult 'Burn-Specialists' to ascertain if these injuries are caused by petrol or some other liquid. This in my view is one more omission on part of the Commission.
Gayatridevi (W-45):
‘Windows of their coach had broken down because of the attack and through those windows stones and bulbs used to come inside the coach. They had therefore, climbed up on the upper berth to escape from being hit by the stones. Her sister Pratiksha was hit by a stone. One acid bulb had hit Malaben and caused burn injuries to her. She had seen burning rags falling in the adjoining compartment of their coach. Those rags had caused smoke and fire in the compartment. One burning rag had fallen on the lower seat near the berth on which they were sitting.’
Govindsinh (W-46):
‘He an Army Subedar (sitting @ seat No.3) : there was pelting of stones which had continued for about half an hour. Stones hitting the windows had broken shutters thereof and some stones had started coming inside the coach.....................After some time he got a scent of something burning .It was coming from the side of seat no. 72. Thereafter he had seen smoke coming towards him. Then some flames were also seen coming towards their side.’
A golden tribute to Indian Army comes here. "He had got out of the coach from the right hand side and was caught by some persons forming a small mob. He was also given a blow on his head. Only after he was able to convince them that he was a man from the army that he was allowed to go."
Shilaben Virpal (W-47) :
While doing so she was hit by a stone and had started bleeding. Soon thereafter something thrown from outside had fallen inside the coach. From the sound which it had made, she had felt that it was like a glass bottle filled with something falling on the floor. Thereafter there was heavy scent of something followed by smoke inside the coach. After about a minute, there was fire in the coach. Her ‘sari’ had caught fire and she had also received burn injuries.
THIS IS THE MOST NEAREST THING TO KNOWING THE TRUTH BEHIND THE S6 FIRE. It's however impossible to find out the person who threw it.......
Mukeshbhai Makwana (W-48):
‘He tells seeing something about 'kerbas' i.e. carboys from S7.
It's possible that some of the attackers were carrying plastic cans that contain muddy oil that's used to clean parts of automobile (2/3/4-wheelers). Given that Signal Falia has some auto repair shops it's possible that they keep some oil for cleaning purposes and also keep the muddy oil (petrol already used becomes muddy oil). Secondly all the auto garages keep good number of rags for cleaning purposes and the rags can't be reused after a few cleanings.
Mr. Makwana :
‘He had also seen other persons from the mob pouring something on coach S/6. This man is most likely a Sanghi and the deposition is nothing but FALSE. This man talks about S7 damaged as a result of stone throwing but very strangely the S7 was let off.’
RATIONALE: It's proved beyond doubt that nothing was poured on S6 that is combustible. To prove it again I produce the photo of S6 and we can see the burn pattern on the exterior of S6. If anything was thrown from outside as it's wrtten in the charge-sheet of the Modi government, coach exteriror would have been burnt in FULL.
- Fig 8. Ground Zero & S-6 at the Railway Yard
Punamkumari (W-49):
‘The glass and metal shutters of the windows had given way and stones were coming inside the coach.............................Someone had then thrown one burning rag inside their compartment through that window. Her father-in-law had tried to extinguish it by putting his shoes over it. Thereafter there was smoke in the compartment...........She has stated that burning rags were thrown inside the coach through the window near her seat. At that time she was sitting on the upper berth. She had not seen any flame but had seen only smoke, while she was inside the coach. She had seen flames after she had come out of the coach.’
N.B : Petrol poured would produce a boom of fire. No such thing was reported. Therefore somebody pouring petrol is the story planted by Modi's government.
Hariprasad Joshi (W-1009):
"One window of the adjoining compartment had remained open (Was this the dysfunctional window?) and through it stones were coming inside the coach Therefore, the passengers sitting there had left their seats and were standing in the passage. Many passengers had climbed on upper berths but they had come down when somebody had said that there was fire in the coach...............He was able to get out of the coach but his wife could not do so. By the time he was telling her to get out of the coach in the same manner in which he had got out, there was a big fire in the coach and his wife was burnt alive inside the coach.’
Here the Mr. Joshi crawled his way out as he ducked black smoke in the coach i.e. it's already burning actively. He could escape but his wife couldn't as the smoke would have caused asphyxia and she'd have fallen unconscious. It's difficult to correlate the carboy theory with this witness as theory has no legs to stand & Mrs. Joshi stood right at the centre of the origin of fire. Moreover he also stated, "...received burn injuries while he was inside the coach, but had not seen flames inside the coach till he had gone out of it."
Radheshyam Mishra (W-1013):
‘He had seen persons in the mob throwing glass bottles inside the coach. Because of those things passengers inside the coach were getting injured. He has further said that the bottles contained some liquid and that liquid had started burning after falling in the coach. Some persons in the mob had also thrown burning rags inside the coach. Then there was fire and smoke in the coach and the passengers were shouting “there is fire, there is fire”. From the scent of the smoke, it was felt by him that petrol was burning. He had seen smoke and flames coming from the side of seat no. 72..........................He has stated that glass bottles and burning rags which had fallen inside the coach had caused smoke in the coach. Thereafter he had heard a big noise of something falling and exploding at the end of their coach. He has stated that shutters of the windows were of glass and aluminium but they were able to see outside as shutters of some windows had broken down and they had become open.’
This man is from railways and he said something about a big noise. This is the most curious piece of evidence with no collateral or secondary evidence to back a theory or a working assumption.
Ramnaresh Gupta (W-1015) :
‘Stones hitting the windows had broken their shutters and that he had seen Muslim mobs outside through those open windows. They were also carrying weapons like swords and iron bars and were shouting “ Maro, Kapo, Badhane Jalavi Do (Burn them all).” The mob was pelting stones on their coach. After some time he had seen smoke coming from the toilet side of their coach. The mob was also throwing burning things inside the coach. When pelting of stones had started the door of the coach S/6 leading to coach S/7 was closed. It was locked from inside with a small stopper. He had himself closed that door. From the noise he could make out that persons from outside were hitting on that door. He had then seen smoke coming out from the toilet on the platform side i.e. on the left hand side of the train. He had not seen flames till he had gone out of the compartment. He has stated that smoke inside the coach had caused burning sensation in their eyes and difficulty in breathing.’
This gentleman closed the S6-S7 door and his evidence that somebody banging the metal door can be a frantic attempt by passengers in S7 to rescue or get access to S6. This banging sound in itself can't be dubbed as intruders appearing with carboys from nowhere. This theory just ignores the hundreds of passengers in each and every part of the train. Mr. Gupta's action of closing the door is questionable as he didn't tell where from did he escape from? Was it D3 or D1?
Virpal Pal (W-1016):
‘Stones hitting shutters of windows of their coach had broken those shutters and thereafter stones had started coming inside the coach..........................Glass bottles were also thrown inside the coach. Within a short time, there was smoke in the coach. He has stated that burning of petrol had caused smoke inside their coach.’
- Fig 9. Modi was the first man to tamper with the evidence
THE REST OF THE WITNESSES ARE BY RAILWAY POLICE, GUJARAT POLICE. For obvious reasons I have left them out.
NOW THE MOST COMMON DENOMINATOR OF THE PUBLIC WITNESSES INLUDING THAT OF KARSEVAKS IS THIS:
1. Train halted again after Karsevaks’ assault on vendors.
2. Small mob stoned S6
3. Train halted again at Cabin “A”
4. More mobs started stoning
5. Window breaches (Most likely W7 or W8)
6. Stones, Burning Rags, Bottles with fire were thrown in
7. Smoke started and in 10-15 minutes
8. Fire started on the S7 side of S6, somewhere near seat 72 or
9. All the people crawled their way out towards S5 and D1 door.
ANYTHING OUTSIDE THIS NARRATION NEED CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BACKED BY FORENSIC EVIDENCE.
I DISCUSSED THE FORENSIC PART IN PART II.
Instead Modi government manufactured witnesses and fiction to prove something that’s not true.
PART II
In the earlier part I reviewed Commission's Report (up to page 140) and compared it with the evidence on ground and made some obersvations. Here in this part I discuss the Report that quoted Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Gandhinagar. I've verified the FSL's conclusions with evidence on ground. Here's what I have to say: INTRODU CTION : The Government of Gujarat came out by saying that petrol was 'poured' from out side and the S6 was set on fire. However the press as well as public found it untrue as the exteriror of S6 bore the evidence of fire emanating from inside. The FSL took cue and came out confirming that firea actually emanated from inisde. Then the Modi government started inventing various possibilities and finally found something like petrol carboys smuggled in petrol poured and set on fire. Unfortunately FSL added to this unfounded theory. The quality of investigations done either by the government of Gujarat or FSL appear to be faulty. Here's the representative sketch of S6 and its corss-section facing Baroda. I give below the pattern of events that unfolded (based on the findings of the Commission: 1. Floor of the railway coaches is made up of hard material but the seats and berths were covered with thick rexine which is highly combustible 2. All human beings are highly combustible material 3. Bag and Baggage is all plastic or rexine or plastic, which is again highly combustible 4. S6 had about 220-250 passengers inside (at the time of attack) 5. The doors leading to S5 and S7 were closed (at last S7-side door is closed as per some witness), which is not the case in Sleeper coaches 6. There's a huge build up Carbon Dioxide on account of exhalation of 200+ passengers (as the doors and windows were closed 7. W7,W8 or W9 is broken and there's a small window of free air inside (the sustained attack through W7 OR 8 is possible in two circumstances: a. The window door is faulty (which is very normal in Indian railways) b. Some men in the mob stood on the steps of D4 and hammered the windows with rods. Why they chose W8 or 7 is mystery c. It's probably the men who assaulted the vendors were sitting there or the girl molestor(s) is(are) there. 8. Fire rags thrown inside. Procuring rags is not impossible as auto garages keep such rags for cleaning pruposes. Secondly keeping reasonable amounts of petrol for cleaning engines is a norm among all garages. Sometimes they use the petrol inside the automobiles they repair. The used petrol becomes muddy oil which is thcik with impurities. 9. At the height the mob stand, the fire bottles and rags would reach passengers in middle or upper berths or just they fall on floor. If not contained these fire rages spread on the rexine material of the seats and berths. 10. With fire catching the clothes of passengers or it's just thrown away as passengers are too frightened to fetch water from tiolets and wash basins and douse fire rags. Drop down follows. 11. Since most of the passengers went up the top berths to avoid stones, the rags were left to themselves resulting in catching of fire - first on baggage or lower berths of C7 OR C8 but unlikely in C9 (due to the burn pattern on floor in C9) - literally a' high order fire' due to the combustible materials like rexine. 12. Build up of smoke on account of multiple rags and muddy oil would consume the least most of oxygen inside 13. More smoke and the source of fire is kerosene, diesel, petrol or muddy oil. 14. Some passengers find it suitable to escape on North Side though there's no mass escape as some mob was expected on North side too. So evacuation was avoided. 15. A valuable 10 minute is lost in hustle and confusion inisde S6. It's certian that passage doors towards S5 & S7 are closed. There's a witness who said that he closed the sliding door of S7. 16. Fire got oxygen from toilets towards D1,D2 17. Some passengers inhaled so much of black smoke (many vomited black smoke in Godhra General Hospital during treatment) 18. Black smoke is the result of muddy oil rags, burning of rexine which would generate most of black smoke on fire 19. Rage of fire in S6 slackened the mob; perhaps that's why people start escaping from North side. It always happens when fire is not getting enough oxygen. However this lull would be followed by flashover(s) and that's evident in some photographs in the Report. A couple of groups on North side who're hostile (though attacked in the first moments of evacuation) may have fled the scene as the fire spread and visible from outside. 20. It's too unbearable in C9,C8,C7 & C6. People started saving their lives by crawling on the floor as the top portions of S6 became too thick with black smoke as there's no escape route for smoke 21. Whoever could not escape fell unconscious on the loor. There're 59 people succumbed and all could be withing the compartments of W5,W6,W7,W8 & W9. Given the small floor area in each compartment it's possible that these compartments were full of the fallen passengers most of whom are children and women. It's almost like pile of unconscious passengers. 22. Fire tenders came and start dousing flames. 23. RPF then start firing warning shots and disperse mobs 24. Evreybody from civil, police authorities descend near the site after the S6 reached auto-ignition stage & mini flashovers. 25. It's all over by then, however the fire brigade use water jets (which is again an unscientific approach to railway coach fires). 26. Once the fire's stopped, civic authorities started theri part of the action. It's important to know the nature of FIRE to know its behaviour: Fire by definition is 'an oxidation process with the evolution of light and heat' When fire rags are thrown inside a coach like this it is either cathces fire on the clothes of the passengers or when left untamed would lie on the floor or rexine foam (that's part of all the interiors of II class coaches in India) whose thermal properties are very notorious. Since the diesel, muddy oil rags on fire are organic the rexine that catches fire is also organic. The smoke that comes out of such burns would be thick and black and it has little chance to escape the coach since it was enclosed all around. Once fire reaches a flammable limits it acquire auto-ignition temperature and spread through coach seats, baggage. Multiple lean flashovers occur followed by major flashover and that's evident in some photgraphs taken by a passenger (page 135 and 136 of the Report). There's oxygen deficiency in the room and there're small but multiple rags burnings inside the coach S6. These burns generate black smoke that reach the ceiling of S6, whereby some passengers would lose consciousness or cough with asphyxia. The auto-ignition takes over at these multiple points and flammability 'limit' (i.e. temperature required to spread fire) is lowered by then i.e. it does't need 60 litre petrol to burn the coach; it spreads on its own. Those who're caught with asphyxia fell unconscious were succumbed. THERE'S AMPLE EVIDENCE (IN THE FORM OF DEPOSITIONS) THAT INDICATE THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. Lets examine FSL's (Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) version whose Report was used as a trump card by the Nanavati Commission. The FSL was the bigegst partner in doing scientific investigations on S6 and Godhra in general (on 01.05.2002!!!!!!!!!!! i.e. after 60 days of the incident & the coaches were lying in open Railway Yard where curious people, political leaders made beeline for a 'VISIT'!) but whatever they did was on a piece of evidence that was tampered several hundred times which makes the work of FSL very weak. The Government of Gujarat made it public that 'terrorists' in collusion with Pakistan's ISI planned in advance to burn S6 & poured petrol from outside and burnt it. This 'theory' was rubbished by common people and journalists alike as the S6 coach didn't look like a coach that was burnt from petrol thrown on her. On public demand or what the FSL conducted a simple experiment with water to see if the coach can be burnt from outside. Even a macaque wouldn't belive such 'theories', howver FSL felt it right to 'cponduct' an experiment. In a way the Government of Gujarat started peddling in petty theories instead of solid forensic analyses and criminal investigations. Nevertheless, being drunk on public support after thumping victory in the elections after this godsend event, Modi Govenrment went on theory-spee (and threw theory after theroy) to prove that S6 buring was a 'terrorist' attack whereas what happened in other part of Gujarat was a 'communal riot'. The Gujarat police went extra mile to please its megalomaniac boss in Narendra Modi. It's true that Gujarat police, like many other departments in Gujarat were communalised beyond redemption. Government changed FIRs but never budged on this 'terrotist' kahaani. It's probably the times when it's fashionable to implicate Pakistan in everything that happened within India. N.B : IT'S ALWAYS TOUTED BY MODI HIMSELF, ADVANI AND MANY CRONY JOURNALISTS LOYAL TO RSS THAT MODI GOT HUGE PUBLIC MANDATE. SO WHAT? WOULD THE MANDATE WASHOUT THE CULPABILITY OF MODI IN HIS CRIMINAL MACHINATIONS? NEVER. ADVANI USED THIS CHUTIYA ARGUMENT WITH US SECRETARY OF STATE RICE TO GET USA VISA FOR MODI, THOUGH HE'S NOT SUCCESSFUL. WHAT NANAVTI COMMISSION SAYS ABOUT THE FSL REPORT: Page 148, Point 209 : "Evidence of the passengers that something was thrown in the coach from the place in between the two latrines and near Seat No.72 receives independent support from the evidence of Dr. Dahiya, (W-32) Additional Director of Forensic Sciene Laboratory. (Pl refer to the sketch above & see the HOLE between the two latrines of S6 (towards S7) "From the pattern of burning inside the coach, its extent and severity and its effect on the floor of the coach it had appeared to him that more than 60 liters of highly inflammable liquid was used to cause that fire....................He has also in his report Exh.94 stated that there were scratch marks and other marks on the sliding door in between coaches S/6 and S/7 and those marks indicated use of force in opening the door. He had also come to the conclusion that the door was open when there was big fire in the coach." Even by the standards of commonsense these observations are downright stupid. a. The inference of 60 litres is untenable as the normal scientific explanation is available for the spread of fire in the coach. Moreover the petrol theory is invalid as there're many parts of floor where the petrol supposedly poured was intact. b. The scratch marks (outside the slide door as seen from S7 coach) recorded after a 2 months of incident (by when the coach was tampered several hundred times, starting with Modi) doesn't connote any conclusive evidence, simply put it's not evidence at all. Any force of scrathces can't open the door from outside because there's noway anybody can exert enough pressure and unlock by pressure. c. Use of force to open the door could also be an attemot to reach out to the friends and relatives in S6 by the friends and relatives in S7. This argument that scratches indicate forcible breach of door is downright dumb. d. The door can't be opened by anybody from S7 as it's closed from inside by the witness Mr. Ramnaresh Gupta; more so when it's hot. It appears that either Dr. Dahiya is dumb or his report was misquoted by the Commission. The long scratch mark was inside S6 slide door is impossible for anybody to make from outside at that particular place on the door. Moreover it's absolutely clear that the scratch mark inside S6 was due to the bolt rod and that's evident in the photograph in page 148 of the Report. Page 155 has talked about (Commission as well as FSL) the big hole that's attributed to 60 litre petrol. If this is the place where 60 litre petrol was poured then by capillay action it would spread in all directions and burn the floor but it didn't. So this could be the structural issue and can explained by the structural engineers. I am saying this because there's consistency in this type of incidents and the holes that occur in the same spot. In June 2002 another coach 'burnt at Karjan near Baroda due to some alcohol smuggled into Gujarat and the photographs tell a similar story. Page 155: "Considering the nature and extent of the damage caused by the fire he has stated that it could not have occurred unless inflammable liquid to the extent of more than 60 liters was used for that purpose." This is not a conclusion but a faulty inference. The FSL's contention is wrong. Page 157: "What the evidence discloses is that when the fire in the coach had caused smoke in the coach some persons from outside had forcibly opened the interconnecting door between coach S/6 and S/7. At that time something had fallen in the coach and the sound created by it had led the passengers to infer that a big bottle or carboy filled with some liquid had fallen in the coach. Dr. Dahiya’s evidence also establishes that large quantity of highly inflammable liquid was thrown inside the coach through a place between two latrines. Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses and the report of Dr. Dahiya, it would be reasonable to conclude that some persons had entered into coach through the doors and poured petrol therein by standing near the two latrines near seat No.72." It's not clear who is dumber. Was that FSL's Dr. Dahiya or Justice Nanavati or Injustice Akshay Mehta? If liquid (petrol) was poured then it'd spread all over the place and burn but there're many places on the floor near toilets that's not burnt, inclusing the window side of the compartment C9, which is strange that it's the closest compartment to the origin of petrol poured from carboys. Therefore fire spread from W8 or W7 but not from W9. It's also true that fire didn't start from the hole that's seen in Fig 4. It's because the some parts of the floor near toilets was untouched by fire. It's very much true that fire caught the toilet walls and spread towards the connecting part of the two coaches S6 & S7. As for the fire reaching the top & middle parts of S6-7 while not burning the entire floor between the toilets in S6, it's due to the latex columns and the abundance of oxygen coming from the gaps of S6-S7 space. Unfortunately the S-7 was removed from the yard. Nothing more can be said on that. "The petrol which had fallen on the floor had caused severe damage to the floor of that coach." If floor burn pattern (espcially the aisles) is the basis then the intruders should come in the middle of S6 and pour petrol! Given the nature of the arguments proferred the Judges seem to be complete dodos. Look at this picture and judge for yourself. A guy come with 3 big jerry cans of petrol walks in. It's take about two minutes to dump petrol from each jerry can. It'd therefore take five to six minutes to pour petrol from 3 carboys. Would these passengers, especially Karsevaks who're carying knives leave such man with petrol whose intent to torch the coach? Even if a man came and poured petrol and lit fire. Would anybody belive that he's go out alive? a. The petrol man can't escape the fire he lit petrol of b. The Karsevaks would stab him a million times Has anybody out of the 200 passengers seen such a dramatic act? Why Modi government such is such a dumbass? Was it not a criminal intent to portray a fiction as truth? What kind of forensic investigation is this? SO THE COMMISSION GAVE ITS VERDICT : Page 159: "213. The Commission has come to the conclusion that the fire in coach S/6 was not caused by an accident, but the coach was set on fire by throwing petrol in it. What is reuired to be considered next is the aspect of conspiracy. The Commission has, on the basis of the evidence found reliable, that sometime before the Sabarmati Express train was to start from Godhra railway station a false rumour was spread in the Signal Falia locality that a Ghanchi Muslim girl was being forcibly taken away in that train, for inducing many persons of that locality to come near the train and attack it. After the train had left the platform, it was stopped at the desired place by pulling its chain. While a big mob was attacking the train with stones near A cabin, some persons had made coach S/6 as their target of attack. Its windows on the Signal Falia side were broken and through those windows burning rags and pouches containing inflammable material were thrown inside the coach. That had led to fire and smoke in coach S/6. By spreading a false rumour, conspirators had managed to collect large number of persons near the train thereby making it difficult for others to identify who were the persons who had set the coach on fire. There was selection of the place where the train was to be stopped. That place was not far from the Station and the Signal Falia. Otherwise, it would have made it difficult to collect so many persons near the train. The train was stopped at a place where it was easier for the conspirators to carry petrol. It was within the yard where the movement of the public was less. All these circumstances indicate that what was to be done was planned in advance. The incidents which had happened earlier at the Station were not such as would have led the general public to commit such a ghastly act and that rules out the possibility of burning coah S/6 as a retaliatory act to what had happened earlier at the Station." It's more than laughable how such conclusions are given with such faulty forensics? PART III When the murderous Ganchi Muslims of Signal Falia (Narendra Modi is a famous Ganchi & this gives clue why Ganchis are savages) attacked S6 of Sabarmati Express, the BJP Government of Gujarat and its Sangh Octopus organisations said in unison, "Conspiracy". How they know before any investigation is conducted? Well, that's the norm when nikamma Advani was the Home Minister of India. It was the time in India when it's fashionable to link every incident in India to Pakistan or its secret service agency ISI. Infact Advani was the progenitor of this mania in India. He escaped dozens of censures by deflecting all incidents to Pakistan and ISI. It's true that ISI has sinister designs on India but as Home Minister Advani failed miserably to prevent ISI's penetration & operations on Indian soil. Therefore it suited him to blame somebody else & deflect public attention for his failures. Similarly Modi emulated his guru on Godhra instead of investigating the heinous mob attack i.e. blame Pakistan and deflect focus from himself. Since it's fashionable nobody dared to question that haraami Modi. He even linked Godhra to the terrotists in Kashmir as if he knew everything. If the chutiya knew everything why he failed to prevent it? (Since both Advani and Modi were screwed in all pores by the same Sangh Octopus since they're young, it's not unreasonable to expect such chutiya reactions from Advani and Modi). Everything fell in line for the theory of 'conspiracy' and Modi's administration's arranged all the pieces of te theory manufactured by his police. Mr. Noel Parmar, the such a doormat that he managed all such people required for the 'theory'. Tehelka did some awesome work on Godhra and post-Godhra. Tehelka men took risk of their lives and put their heads in the mouth of Sangh raakshas several times to find the poison inside. The nation of India owes a debt to Tehelka that did such public service on its own. This link unravels the secrets behind the 'conspiracy theory' propunded by Modi the lumpen scientist. http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ne111008coverstory.asp In effect Modi's government made the criminal justice system stand on its head. Page 159 Point 214: ".........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. Those statements and confessions disclose that on his visits to Godhra, Nannumiya used to go to Aman Guest House many times. When he had last visited Aman Guest House he had told Rajak Kurkur and others how Muslim organizations in Kashmir were fighting with the Administration and others. Rajak Kurkur and others were thus instigated to do something of the kind at Godhra. In pursuance thereof it was decided by them and others to set on fire one coach of Sabarmati Express train carrying Ramsevaks. As a part of that conspiracy, on the night of 26.2.2002, Rajak Kurkur, Salim alias Salimyusuf Sattar jarda and Jabir Behra, Salim Panwala and Shaukat Lalu had decided to procure petrol. Siraj Bala, Salim Panwala, Salim Jarda, Jabir Behra, Shaukat Lalu and some other persons had then gone in a parrot green coloured ‘tempy rockshaw’ (small delivery van) to the petrol pump of Kalabhai at about 9.30 p.m, followed by Rajak Kurkur and obtained petrol in 7 or 8 carboys of 20 litres each. They had then returned to Aman Guest House where the carboys were removed from the tempy and put inside the guest house.When they were standing near Pan galla of Rajak Kurkur, two leaders of their community Bilal Haji and Faruk Bhana had come there and told them that they had met Maulvi Husain Haji Ibrahim Umarji and the Maulvi had told them to set on fire coach No.6 of Sabarmati Express train." The above passage is taken mutatis mutandis from the charge-sheet of the Modi's police. It sounds like the rowdy Karsevaks were prompted by the conspirators to assault tea vendors & misbehave, molest a teenage girl. Doesn't this sound like a cock and bull story(it's pun intended all the way)? "The false rumour spread earlier by Salim Panwala had led many Ghanchi Muslims to collect near ‘A’ cabin and attack the train." a. Why they need to spread a FASLE RUMOUR if it's conspired to torch S6? They can just go to S-6 and torch it. Why they need to gather hundreds of men, women and children? b. How they can pre-plan to attack S6 alone when the whole train is full of Karsevaks? c. Why can't anybody get the catch here? It's probably because Nanavati Commission was not 'Investigating' the case but 'Inquiring' into it. "Mohmed Latika had cut open canvass of the adjoining coach S/7 and through that opening he and Jabir had climbed on that coach with two carboys with them." The script writer in Modi Government should show as to where the cut portions that enabled somebody enter the coach S-6? Please check the pictures below and find for yourselves. As we can see the latex columns are conjoined and held tight for any intrusions. From Fig. 3 & 4 we can find that it's not breached. If they cut S7 (which is not visible in other photographs), why they let S7 leave Godhra and keep useless S5 in the yeard instead? Secondly there're photographs of joint S6 and S7. There's no canvass (a thick cloth that's used before the current coaches came in to existence) and these Judges say that Mohmad Latika had cut open the canvass. HOW can anybody cut non-existing canvass? That's the beauty of Modi's Government. Unfortunately the Commission went by the version of police though they made several visits to the Yard. They seem to have not actually 'inspected' it. Page 161, 162 "The connecting door of S/6 was then forcibly opened. After entering into the coach, some one had opened the door of S/6 on the ‘A’ cabin side. From that door, Irfan and other persons carrying caboys had entered into the coach. All of them had then thrown the carboys carried by them in the coach by standing near the latrines and Seat No.l fire, they would not have complained like that. This cirsumstance together with the conduct of the passengers provides an independent corroboration to their evidence that by pelting stones and using force the hostile mob had broken the windows on the left side of their coach and through those open windows, stones, burning rags and other articles were thrown inside rhe coach by the persons who were in the mob and they were required to take steps to protect themselves. Seeing the fire and the smoke, they would have got out on the signal Falia also." a. The connecting door can't be opened from outside. The scratch mark they mention were inside not outside. Moreover the FSL studied the coach that's in the open yard after good 60 days! b. When the coach has 200+ passengers how the impossible intruder has then opened D4 (on South Side)? None of the witnesses gave this account (btw, this is the police version who 'scripted' conspiracy case. c. This paragraph is full of lies without a physical or corroborative evidence. How can the Commission 'conclude' on this type of concotions? Modi is utterly shameless chutiya to use this Report for his propaganda purposes for eg. he validated his 'Conspiracy theory' and exonerated himself from any wrongdoing on post-Godhra. Well, we all knew he's such a shameless but smart haraami. The Report is full of inconsistencies and presumptions and untruths. However there're certain portions that're reasonable (based on material truth) but the Report tells exactly the opposite elsewhere. It appears that some parts of the Report are 'one sided' and others are not. It's probably the effect of Injustice Akshay mehta who's appointed by Modi in April 2008 in the place of the deceased Justice Shah. This Akshay Mehta was famous for exonerating ALL the murderers of post-Godhra pogrom. Given the nature of such a black sheep, it's not impossible to conclude that this is the mole of Modi he who navigated the Report through such ridiculous twists and turns. Page 166 and Point 217: ".......there was no reason for the alleged conspirators to hatch a conspiracy of the type alleged by the State. Prior to 27-2-2002, three groups of Karsevaks had gone to Ayodhya by Sabarmati Express train and these trains had crossed the town of Godhra during nights. Yet no attempt was made to harm anyone of those Karsevaks. It was submitted that the version of the Government regarding purchase of 140 litres of petrol on the night of 26-2-2002 is also very doubtful in view of the fact that the alleged conspirators did not know that the Karsevaks were to come by Sabarmati Express train passing through Godhra on 27-2-2002. If the Karsevaks were to be attacked then it was not necessary for them to wait till 27-2-2002 morning as a batch of Karsevaks had passed through Godhra on the night of 26th February, 2002 for going to Ayodhya by Sabarmati Express train. There is no evidence to show that there was any suspicious movement at or near Godhra railway station or in the railway yard." "If the conspiracy was to attack the Karsevaks in darkness so as to avoid identity of the conspirators or the persons executing the conspiracy, as alleged, then it is highly unlikely that the conspirators would have thought of executing the conspiracy in the morning of 27th February, 2002 for the fear of getting identified in day light. There is no evidence to show that the alleged conspirators had any reason to attack the Karsevaks who were travelling on that day by coach S/6. The version of the Government that the chain was pulled from outside is also false in view of the new mechanism of the emergency chain. Though not impossible, it has now become very difficult to pull the chain from outside the coach. The version of Government that soon after the train started the emergency chain was pulled by the alleged conspirators in execution of the conspiracy stands disproved by the evidence of the Guard and witness Minaxidevi who have clearly stated that the first time chain was pulled as some passengers were left behind on the platform when the train had started. Their evidence clearly falsifies the allegation that the first chain pulling was done by Ilias and others. The evidence further shows that the Karsevaks who had a quarrel with a tea vendor on the platform had also misbehaved with two other Muslim vendors.An attempt was also made by some Karsevaks to forcibly take a Muslim girl in train by pulling her hand. It was, therefore, submitted that if at all the Sabarmati Express train was attacked, as alleged, it was because of the incidents which had happened while the train was on the platform and not because of any conspiracy hatched earlier." The Report spoke in two ways. One is that of Justice Nanavati and the other is that of Akshay Mehta. As Point 217, Point 220 also connotes that there's no "conspiracy": "It was also submitted that Rajendraprasad Meena, Assistant Station Master who was at ‘A’ cabin has stated that he had not seen any suspicious movement near ‘A’ cabin." Point 222 proves that there's a conspiracy : "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." I don't know how it's a false rumour when the girl herself deposed as molested? How her deposition be accused as false and use the same excuse as 'false rumour' used by the mobs whihc became as part of the 'conspiracy' theory? How can they have it both ways? The justification given by the Commission for rejection has no legs to stand. It's out of prejuidice that the Commission rejected the witness, otherwise it'd be impossible to prove Modi's Conspiracy Theory. This is a collaboration between Modi and Mehta and the same can be proved in a video given below. This video establishes how this Injustice Akshay Mehta was instrumental in releasing all the accused in post-Godhra pogrom (video by Tehelka): Please see @ 7.45 onwards. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfnTl_Fwvbo&hl=en&fs=1] In page 172, Page 227 the Commission makes its Judgement: "On the basis of the facts and cirumsances proved by the evidence the Commission comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act." It appears that they disputed their own version a few pages before that it could not be a conspiracy. THE COMMISSION MADE FOOL OF ITSELF BY COMPILING SUCH A REPORT FULL OF CONTRADCTIONS, DUBIOUS INFERENCES AND PRESUMTIONS. These's no 'conpsiracy' to torch S-6 but there's definitely a plan to cook-up the conspiacy theory. It's not rocket science who did the cooking. Modi said ont he day one of the incident that S-6 torching was the 'plan' of the 'terrorists' in collusion with Pakistan & ISI perpetrated the crime. Crime it was but not a conspiracy for sure. Quite paradoxically, the Nanavati Commission Report debunked the theory of 'conspiracy' and explained in details how it's not true but inexplicably gave a conclusion that repudiated its own Report. The Godhra mob attack was 'designed' as 'conpsiracy' theory to justify the mass murders in all parts of Gujarat that followed the day after. It's no secret that Modi blessed the 3-day operation of revenge. The prof of pudding is in eating. It's an open secret that Sangh funded the legal battles of thousands of the prime accused & suspects. They appealed, cajoled, argued, bribed an threatened the people who filed cases against the Sanghis. Modi's government helped the VHP men become the Public Prosecutors who'd liaise with the accusers and manage every possible trick to nullify the cases. Judges who preside over such cases become Injustices and deliver injutice in Gujarat. The high-priest of this process is Modi himself. Whereas the S-6 attack was labelled as a terrorist attack and behaved exactly the opposite way in proceeding against many people who're not even present on that day (pl see the Indian Express report on such cases of misuse of authority). THERE'S A SAYING : A NATION DIES IF IT DOENS'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD. India is in real danger with these demons in power who don't know the difference between truth and falsehood. TRIVIA I. What I give below is trivia in a sense but not exactly trivia if taken seriously. The issue of a stove exploding inside was commented upon by the Commission as there's a talk of some passengers or Karsevaks doing cooking inside the coach. I too believe that there's no cooking inside as none of the witnesses accepted such a possibility. However it's not entirely impossible to have some private vendors doing such a thing of preparing tea inside the coach. There're some snaps from S6 that give some support to cooking theory. Fig 7: 1 & 2 Rice bag (50 kg) and clumps of cooked rice (snap 3). It's not clear if it's being brought in by passengers or cooked inside. A bottle of ghee (usually mixed and eaten) with food. Traces of half-boiled/burnt rice, kidney beans (raajma) and pickle packet (polythene) The Governmnet of Gujarat in its 'fiction' implicated some persons who're not in Godhra at the time of this mob attack but shameless as they are, the Modi men weaved stories that're divorced from truth. Does Upanishadic dictum 'Satyameva Jayate' is valid in contemporary India? Check for yourself and see how Modi made this country a laughing stock. II. U.C.BANNERJEE COMMISSION ON GODHRA: Though I haven't read the Report but read excerpts in some magazines but one thing clear that S6 happened due to 'accident' is a lie. It's no accident but a mob attack on S6 with stones and fire rags. Hoeevr it's a superior Commission with a team of experts helped him compile that Report. However the headline of Bennerjee Commission dented its credibility. III. HOW SOME INNOCENTS WERE IMPLICATED BY MODI http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Two-Godhra-accused-in-Pak,-say-they-want-to-return-home/344811/ Two Godhra accused in Pak, say they want to return home Vadodara, August 4 At least two accused in the 2002 Godhra train burning case, who have been evading arrest, are now in Pakistan. The Indian Express managed to speak to Salim Ibrahim Badam alias Paanwala, against whom there is an Interpol alert, and Ibrahim Dhantiya alias Kachuka in Karachi. While police sources say that Paanwala and others enjoy patronage in Karachi, they deny it. When contacted, their families in Godhra claimed they have not been not in touch. But a source said: “By now they have Pakistani passports and IDs. Getting a Pakistani passport is easy. Fleeing to Pakistan was a panic reaction but they know that if they come back, the police here won’t spare them.” Rakesh Asthana, then the Baroda Range IG and in-charge of the Special Investigation team probing the Godhra train incident, says: “If they are in Karachi, then it proves what we have been saying all the time. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything there, it is up to the Government in Pakistan now.” Police officials also say more red-corner notices can be issued if substantive information comes from Karachi. “I want to come back tomorrow but they (police) will not leave me,” Paanwala told The Indian Express over phone from Karachi. “Pakistan is a dangerous place. You have guns and cartridges available everywhere. I want to come back but I will not get justice,” said Ibrahim Dhantiya. Gujarat police have long suspected that Paanwala and some others in the Godhra train burning case had fled to Pakistan. Paanwala, who used to have a paan shop near the Godhra railway station and would sell gutkha on trains, was named by the police in the chargesheet as one of the main conspirators who planned the fire that burnt coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002. Like all 141 accused in the train burning case, Paanwala was booked under POTA. Speaking from Karachi, he said: “I had nothing to do with the train burning incident. I am being hunted for no reason. The police at that time were making anybody forcibly say anything in an affidavit. I did not have any other way (except run away).” When a permanent arrest warrant was issued against him in 2004, Paanwala decided to flee to Pakistan. “I moved around the country, often begging on the streets of different cities. Then in 2005, I decided to go to Pakistan,” he said. The Gujarat police suspected that Paanwala fled to Pakistan by going to Afghanistan and then crossed over. But Paanwala had a different version. “I went to Delhi, lived there for 15 days, took a visa and went to Pakistan. I crossed the border at Attari by train. Check the records there and you will find my name,” he said. Ibrahim, a small-time trader, claimed he, too, took the same route. “Which coach have I burnt? I have done nothing. My enemies trapped me in a false affidavit,” he said. Ibrahim said he went to Pakistan on an Indian passport visa-stamped by the Pakistani consulate in Delhi in August 2004. Both Paanwala and Ibrahim claimed they knew four other Godhra accused were in Karachi but pleaded ignorance on their whereabouts. In Karachi, they said, life had been tough. In an irony of sorts, Paanwala now works as a labour in a timber yard and Ibrahim sells gutkha. Paanwala said: “I earn around Rs 5,000 with difficulty. I pay Rs 2,000 rent here. Karachi is more expensive than Bombay. My visa has expired and I leave almost under hiding here.” Paanwala has three children and his wife works as a maid, cleaning dishes, to make ends meet. “I couldn’t even come for my daughter’s wedding last year,” he said. Ibrahim said: “The day Godhra happened I was on my way to Kandla port. I used to be a scrap-dealer there. I came back 10 days after the incident.” He has six children. “One of my sons wanted to study but now I can’t fund his education. He is in Class XI and wants to be an engineer.” His eldest son, 23, supports the family by working as a truck-cleaner. — With Anupam Chakravartty
