It took place in 2002—a tragedy that will never be forgotten. The Gujarat Carnage remains one of the bloodiest chapters in post-Independence India. The burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express (from Faizabad to Ahmedabad), near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat, on 27 February 2002, which resulted in the deaths of 59 people, was strongly condemned. Several persons were convicted for the incident, though debate continues over what caused the fire, with some maintaining that it may have been accidental. Any death—particularly one so tragic—leaves an immeasurable void in the lives of loved ones.
What followed this incident was violence on a scale that many observers described as beyond comprehension and wholly unjustifiable. According to eyewitness accounts, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, convened a late-evening meeting on 27 February with senior BJP leaders and government officials. Different accounts exist regarding what transpired at that meeting, and the official minutes were never made public. However, in the days and weeks that followed, widespread violence engulfed Gujarat. Muslims were attacked, killed, raped, and displaced; homes and businesses were destroyed. The scale and intensity of the violence deeply scarred the state. While numbers are often cited, they cannot fully convey the brutality witnessed. Allegations were also made that elements within the law enforcement machinery failed to act decisively, and in some cases were complicit.
On 21 November 2002, the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal, headed by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, former judge of the Supreme Court of India, released its report titled Crime Against Humanity. Based on over 2,000 oral and written testimonies from survivors, human rights groups, women’s organisations, NGOs, academics, and concerned citizens, the Tribunal indicted the Government of Gujarat, holding it responsible for the violence, arson, and looting.
The Tribunal and other fact-finding groups concluded that the violence was not merely spontaneous communal rioting but was organized and targeted. They alleged that it was premeditated, aimed at economically and socially crippling the Muslim community. Reports suggested that sections of the middle class participated in the violence, and that in certain areas Adivasis and Dalits were mobilized in attacks on Muslim homes and businesses. The Tribunal also alleged state complicity, naming political leaders, bureaucrats, and police officials, and accusing them of either direct involvement or deliberate inaction. A 2007 sting operation by Tehelka claimed to provide further evidence supporting these allegations.
In December 2003, then Chief Justice of India V. N. Khare, while presiding over a bench of the Supreme Court, sharply criticized the Gujarat Government, questioning its commitment to prosecuting those responsible. Later, on 8 February 2012, Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya of the Gujarat High Court observed that inadequate state response had contributed to an anarchic situation and emphasized that the state could not shirk its constitutional responsibilities.
Amid growing allegations of high-level complicity, the Supreme Court of India appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe select cases, including a complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri, who was killed during the violence. Critics questioned aspects of the SIT’s functioning, alleging lapses and incomplete scrutiny of senior officials.
In June 2022, a three-judge bench led by Justice A. M. Khanwilkar upheld the SIT’s closure report, which found no prosecutable evidence against Modi and other senior officials. The Gujarat High Court had earlier declined to entertain Zakia Jafri’s plea in 2017. The Supreme Court’s 452-page judgment stated that no fault could be found with the SIT’s approach and that the allegations of a larger criminal conspiracy lacked substantiation. While the judgment must be respected, some survivors and activists have expressed disappointment.
On 17 January 2023, the BBC aired the first part of a two-part documentary titled India: The Modi Question, with the second part broadcast on 24 January. The documentary examined allegations surrounding Modi’s role during the 2002 violence and included references to a previously unpublished UK government report. The film stated that over 30 individuals declined to participate due to safety concerns and noted that the Indian government declined to comment on the allegations presented. The documentary cited a classified UK Home Office document alleging that the violence was planned and that state authorities created a climate of impunity. It also referred to claims that police were instructed not to intervene—allegations the Indian government has rejected.
The Government of India subsequently banned the documentary, describing it as propaganda and questioning its objectivity.
More than two decades later, reactions remain mixed. Some argue that the events should not be forgotten, while others feel the state and nation must move forward. Several activists—including Teesta Setalvad, R. B. Sreekumar, Rupa Modi, and Sanjiv Bhatt—continue to pursue legal and civil remedies, despite facing significant challenges.
Gujarat today projects itself as a hub of development and global engagement, with Ahmedabad preparing bids for major international sporting events. Yet for many, memories of 2002 remain vivid. The Gujarat Carnage continues to evoke deep pain and unresolved questions. For those who seek justice and reconciliation, the hope endures that truth will ultimately prevail—Satyameva Jayate.
---
*Human rights, reconciliation and peace activist and writer
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor