jamahir
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 28,132
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
No, there was a confrontation and people were being heckled and taunted
Yes the confrontation was about those kar sevak pilgrims in the train having misbehaved with some Muslims at the Godhra railway station, especially with some Muslim women. And so a Muslim mob set out after the train but they did not burn it. From this article :
These kar sevaks were not some innocent people but as aggressive and criminal-minded as kanwariya pilgrims who every year misbehave with people they pass by on the road.Some passengers, listed as witnesses in the chargesheet, spoke about the rowdy behaviour of the karsevaks. "We were forced to sleep on the passages despite having valid reservations," stated a passenger.
The evidence provided by Sajjanlal Mohanlal Raniwal, the ticket examiner on Sabarmati Express, mentions how he was stopped from entering the coaches by activists of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who had forcibly occupied the reserved seats. Raniwal was forced to spend the night in the guard's coach.
Raniwal witnessed an altercation between karsevaks from coach S6 and some others on the Godhra platform before the train left the station. But none of the statements mentions what exactly happened on platform no. 1 during the train's five-minute halt, widely reported as an altercation between karsevaks and Muslim vendors from Signal Falia. Nor do the documents throw any light on what took place after the chain pulling and how long the train was detained before it finally left platform no. 1.
The assistant driver reported to the engine driver that the alarm chain had been pulled in four coaches but he did not know who had done it.
Advocate Yusuf Charkha, who is representing Bilal and Kalota, says the chargesheet is silent on important events preceding the actual burning of coach S6. There are no details on the altercation between the karsevaks and Muslim vendors on the platform. The karsevaks refused to pay for the tea and abused the vendors. A few minutes after the train moved, the alarm chain was pulled, and a few hundred Muslims gathered at the station and started pelting stones at the karsevaks, who also retaliated. Timely intervention by the railway police prevented further untoward incidents and the train left after a few minutes.
And please read the below.
---
About the train burning.
From this article :
The inquiry commission's findings contradicted an earlier probe by retired Supreme Court judge Umesh Chandra Banerjee, who found that the coach fire was not deliberately started.
He concluded in 2005 that the fire began by accident.
He said there was evidence to suggest the blaze began inside the train and that it was not fire-bombed.
From this article :
Dr Dahiya, who, along with scientific officer M.N. Joshi, re-enacted the incident with a railway coach at the spot of the crime, however, concludes that no inflammable liquid was thrown from outside into coach S6. Nor was there any possibility of it being splashed inside from the doors.
The height of the coach windows from ground level at the crime spot was found to be seven feet, which made throwing of inflammable liquid using a bucket or jerrycan next to impossible. The experts tried this from a three-feet elevation, some 14 feet away from where the coach was burnt. Hardly 10-15 per cent of the water used for the purpose got inside the coach, the rest spilling over to the tracks.
"Under such circumstances, coach S6 should have caught fire from outside, the fire engulfing it from below, with the inflammable liquid pooled around the tracks. But the inspection of the tracks and burning pattern on the exterior of coach S6—which had no burn marks below the window level—confirm that the inflammable liquid did not come from outside."
The experts also poured nearly 60 litres of water inside the coach and found none of it spilling over from the open door or reaching the toilets. The report finally concludes that to bum the coach, in the February 27 pattern, 60 litres of inflammable liquid had to be splattered inside the coach using a big container from the passage adjoining seat no. 72. Whodunit? Only further investigations will tell.
The inspection report confirms heavy stone pelting on the burnt coach from the southern side of the tracks. Stones were also found scattered inside the coach. The window panes on one side had been shattered by stones while those on the northern side had melted in the fire.
Three doors of the coach were open at the time of the incident. This again is at variance with the initial statement that all doors had been bolted from inside. All windows were closed. There was no attempt to break the window grills from outside. They had been broken from inside or had melted in the fire. The burning pattern inside the coach, its spread, intensity and effect on the floor, described as 'alligatoring' pattern, indicate that the fire spread rapidly, burning 80 per cent of the coach. There was no evidence of
acid-like, quick burning liquid being used, according to the report.
From this article :
This mentions the cooking part.New Delhi, Jan 17 (PTI) The high-level inquiry into the blaze in a train in Godhra in which 59 persons were burnt to death that led to subsequent violence in Gujarat in 2002 has found that it was an "accidental fire".
"With the elimination of the 'petrol theory', 'miscreant activity theory' as well as the ruling out of any possibility of 'electrical fire', the fire in S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express can at this stage be ascribed as an 'accidental fire'," Justice U C Banerjee committee, appointed by Railway Minister Lalu Prasad, said in its report.
The report was submitted to Railway Board Chairman R K Singh here today.
Noting that there has been a preponderence of evidence that the fire originated in the coach itself without any external input, the committee "completely ruled out" possibility of an inflammable liquid having been used as there was first a smell of burning, followed by dense smoke and flames thereafter.
"This sequence is not possible in case the fire is caused by inflammable liquid thrown on the floor of the coach or an inflammable object thrown from outside the coach", the two-part interim report said.
The Committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge U C Banerjee was constituted on September 4 last year following a Union Cabinet decision to inquire into certain aspects of the incident of fire on the Ahmedabad-bound Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002.
The initial term of the committee was for a period of three months and was subsequently extended by another three months.
The Committee said that the 'inflammable liquid theory' also was negated by the statement of some of the passengers who suffered injuries on the upper portion of the body and not the lower body and who crawled towards the door on elbows and could get out without much injury.
Observing that the report could be "unpalatable for the railways whose entire approach seemed to be casual", Banerjee told reporters that there had been a failure on the part of the Railways and the Commissioner of Railway Safety to conduct a statutory inquiry into the accident.
"This was in breach of the Railway Act as well as the Accident Manual of the Zonal Railway", it said.
The report said that the Railway administration had also not made any concerted effort to preserve clues of the incident.
In particular, the Committee criticised the onward travel to Ahmedabad of S-7 coach despite some damage to it and despite it being a crucial piece of evidence. "In fact, the damaged portion of S-7 has been disposed of as scrap", it said.
The entire hierarchy of Western Railway came in for severe criticism for pre-judging the issue by describing the fire incident as a "miscreant activty without conducting even a preliminary inquiry".
The Committee noted that neither the then Railway Minister nor Members of the Board visited the site of the accident or the injured passengers.
The Committee said that on the basis of available evidence it was "unbelievable that 'Kar Sevaks' (to the extent of 90 per cent of total occupants) armed with 'Trishuls', would allow to get themselves burnt without a murmur by miscreant activity like a person entering S-6 coach from outside and setting the coach on fire".
It noted the forensic laboratory's experiment and verified its conclusion that it was "impossible to set fire to the train from outside".
The Committee has received evidence of cooking inside the coach by Kar Sevaks.
The Committee in its report said that "on the basis of evidence available on record it was found that the train left the platform at around 07.48 a.M. And stopped on account of vacuum failure in some coaches and the train started again at about 08.00 a.m.
"Relying on the Survey of India Mapping of Distances and given the speed of the train at that time, the Committee noted that the engine ought to take about five minutes time to be near the post at 468/19 and the Guard's coach at 468/45. It is at this juncture that the smoke was not only noticed but had been reported to GRP, RPF and Vadodara Control".
"There was thus no scope for any miscreant activity from any external agency during this period", it report said.
The Committee observed that the response of the Godhra Fire Brigade was "most unsatisfactory" not only in terms of delayed arrival but also in terms of high percentage of "ineffective fire engines and non-functioning of the motor pumps" of the fire tenders which were rushed to the accident site.
"A fire which could have been doused in four to six minutes time, took very much longer resulting in heavy loss of lives", the Committee noted.
Though the matter had not been concluded, the Committee felt it necessary to submit an interim report to the Central Government concerning the principal issues as to the causes of fire on the basis of the materials available as of date, the report said.
---
@IMARV @Capt. Karnage
