5 Aug 2002
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
NEW DELHI: All along, the government has been maintaining that most of the 58 persons killed when the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express was set ablaze in Godhra were kar sevaks. But according to highly-placed railway sources, the reservation for the entire coach was from Lucknow and not Faizabad, which is about 120 km before Lucknow.
The investigators are yet to track down and interview those who held reservations on the coach. This was disclosed on Saturday by railway minister Nitish Kumar, who said the railway traffic department had only recently been asked to look up the reservation slips of the passengers booked in S-6 so that traffic inspectors could go to their houses and verify whether they had actually travelled.
While the passengers could provide crucial evidence about how the fire started — especially now that forensic reports say inflammable material was poured from inside — the rail authorities are only interested in handing out claim forms. Nitish said the criminal investigation was a separate matter which did not come under the purview of the railways.
It is not clear if the Gujarat police, who are investigating the Godhra incident, have sought the reservation slips. Nitish said the reason his ministry had not yet released the list of passengers aboard S-6 or done the ‘‘analysis’’ (for which the list is being held up now) earlier, was because he had given instructions to gather the information only after The Times of India sought the list from him on July 5.
‘‘The ticket examiner has written in the chart that he could not get into coach S-6 and hence could not verify how many passengers in the reservation list had actually travelled,’’ he said. The railways has consistently refused to publish the list of passengers of S-6.‘‘Only nine of the 58 persons killed in the incident have been identified from the reservation chart,’’ Nitish said.
So there was no point in publishing the chart because we cannot certify that all those passengers had actually travelled, he added. Incidentally, 19 of the 58 dead are still to be identified. Nitish said that after information on the reserved passengers was collected, the ministry would publish the list in a fortnight along with its ‘‘analysis’’.
Showing posts with label The Godhra Mystery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Godhra Mystery. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
List of Godhra victims still a secret
21 Jul 2002
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Five months after the S-6 compartment of Sabarmati Express was set afire at Godhra, the Railways is yet to make public the list of reserved passengers travelling in the ill-fated coach in which 58 persons died and scores were injured.
In the light of the controversy surrounding the Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory (GFSL) report which says that the inflammable liquid which destroyed S-6 was poured from inside the coach, the testimony of reserved passengers assumes vital significance. Despite persistent efforts over the past month by The Times of India - which wants the reservation list in order to interview passengers about the fateful last moments before S-6 caught fire - Union Railway Minister Nitish Kumar is not willing to part with the names.
Nitish has been distancing his ministry from the Godhra carnage on the ground that what happened was not a ‘rail accident’ but a law and order issue. But the very fact that the Railways made ex-gratia payments to the relatives of those killed and to those injured proves that the ministry indeed treated Godhra as any other ‘accident’.
After all rail accidents, the list of passengers and victims is usually published by the rail ministry. In fact, TOI managed to obtain an internal Western Railways (WR) list of the dead and injured. But the reserved passenger list for S-6 appears to have been treated as something of a state secret.
Though the Gujarat government released the names of 39 of those who died — it is known that 19 victims have yet to be identified — the WR list reveals a hitherto unknown fact: That one of the four passengers who suffered grievous injuries was a Muslim. Ibrahim Bhai was treated at a hospital in Baroda and paid Rs 5,000 ex-gratia on March 5. It is not known whether he was a reserved or unreserved passenger and whether there were other Muslim passengers who also fell victim to the frenzied mob attack at Godhra.
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Five months after the S-6 compartment of Sabarmati Express was set afire at Godhra, the Railways is yet to make public the list of reserved passengers travelling in the ill-fated coach in which 58 persons died and scores were injured.
In the light of the controversy surrounding the Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory (GFSL) report which says that the inflammable liquid which destroyed S-6 was poured from inside the coach, the testimony of reserved passengers assumes vital significance. Despite persistent efforts over the past month by The Times of India - which wants the reservation list in order to interview passengers about the fateful last moments before S-6 caught fire - Union Railway Minister Nitish Kumar is not willing to part with the names.
Nitish has been distancing his ministry from the Godhra carnage on the ground that what happened was not a ‘rail accident’ but a law and order issue. But the very fact that the Railways made ex-gratia payments to the relatives of those killed and to those injured proves that the ministry indeed treated Godhra as any other ‘accident’.
After all rail accidents, the list of passengers and victims is usually published by the rail ministry. In fact, TOI managed to obtain an internal Western Railways (WR) list of the dead and injured. But the reserved passenger list for S-6 appears to have been treated as something of a state secret.
Though the Gujarat government released the names of 39 of those who died — it is known that 19 victims have yet to be identified — the WR list reveals a hitherto unknown fact: That one of the four passengers who suffered grievous injuries was a Muslim. Ibrahim Bhai was treated at a hospital in Baroda and paid Rs 5,000 ex-gratia on March 5. It is not known whether he was a reserved or unreserved passenger and whether there were other Muslim passengers who also fell victim to the frenzied mob attack at Godhra.
Godhra: The RPF Report
11Apr 2002
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
New Delhi: Just three armed constables fired four rounds and dispersed a thousand-strong mob that torched the s-6 coach of sabarmati express at the Godhra station on February 26. This is one of the facts highlighted by the report of Baroda Railway Protection Force Divisional Security Commissioner SN Pandey.
More importantly, the report cited no proof and made no reference to a ‘‘conspiracy’’ behind the attack. The report was sent to the Railway Board last month. Pandey confirmed that very few RPF constables were involved in tackling the situation: only four were on duty at the platform and one was unarmed.
His report does not refer to the presence of any Government Railway Police force men, and says, ‘‘but for the prompt firing and timely rescue by RPF, casualties would have been more as the mob was trying to burn other coaches.’’ So, could the incident have been averted if there was proper deployment of RPF or if the RPF had opened fire before the mob set the coach on fire?
Pandey’s report clearly suggests that the RPF constables reached the train only after the coach was set on fire: ‘‘...the train again stopped at 7.55 am... and this time a crowd of about 1,000 rushed towards the train, pelting stones. Passengers closed doors and windows... the mob sprinkled diesel/petrol on coach no. 93498 (s-6) and set it on fire. Armed RPF team rushed... and fired 04 rounds... (which) led to the dispersal of mob.’’
Another incident narrated in the report suggests that had the RPF men opened fire as the mob was collecting, the Godhra carnage would not have occurred. Soon after coach S-6 was put on fire, the passengers of other coaches got off the train. Soon, 40 armed RPF men, railway officials and doctors reached Godhra and decided to move the stranded passengers. The mob gathered again and proceeded towards the passengers, brandishing swords and sticks. ‘‘the DSC ordered RPF men around him to open fire and 19 rounds were fired by RPF on this occasion. Police and GRP also fired on this crowd... this firing led to the permanent dispersal of the crowd.’’
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
New Delhi: Just three armed constables fired four rounds and dispersed a thousand-strong mob that torched the s-6 coach of sabarmati express at the Godhra station on February 26. This is one of the facts highlighted by the report of Baroda Railway Protection Force Divisional Security Commissioner SN Pandey.
More importantly, the report cited no proof and made no reference to a ‘‘conspiracy’’ behind the attack. The report was sent to the Railway Board last month. Pandey confirmed that very few RPF constables were involved in tackling the situation: only four were on duty at the platform and one was unarmed.
His report does not refer to the presence of any Government Railway Police force men, and says, ‘‘but for the prompt firing and timely rescue by RPF, casualties would have been more as the mob was trying to burn other coaches.’’ So, could the incident have been averted if there was proper deployment of RPF or if the RPF had opened fire before the mob set the coach on fire?
Pandey’s report clearly suggests that the RPF constables reached the train only after the coach was set on fire: ‘‘...the train again stopped at 7.55 am... and this time a crowd of about 1,000 rushed towards the train, pelting stones. Passengers closed doors and windows... the mob sprinkled diesel/petrol on coach no. 93498 (s-6) and set it on fire. Armed RPF team rushed... and fired 04 rounds... (which) led to the dispersal of mob.’’
Another incident narrated in the report suggests that had the RPF men opened fire as the mob was collecting, the Godhra carnage would not have occurred. Soon after coach S-6 was put on fire, the passengers of other coaches got off the train. Soon, 40 armed RPF men, railway officials and doctors reached Godhra and decided to move the stranded passengers. The mob gathered again and proceeded towards the passengers, brandishing swords and sticks. ‘‘the DSC ordered RPF men around him to open fire and 19 rounds were fired by RPF on this occasion. Police and GRP also fired on this crowd... this firing led to the permanent dispersal of the crowd.’’
Godhra violence was waiting to happen
3 Mar 2002
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
New Delhi: The gruesome tragedy at Godhra railway station, was ‘‘waiting to happen.’’ Yet, this important station with a Railway Protection Force post of around 50 armed policemen could do little to stop the mob from torching the Sabarmati Express on February 27 — and thereby the entire state.
The posse from the state government’s Government Railway Police (GRP) too failed to protect passengers. For the past three weeks, the three Sabarmati Expresses have been carrying karsevaks to and from Ayodhya, halting daily at Godhra.
According to a railway official, the area surrounding the Godhra railway station is predominantly Muslim and most of the vendors at the station are Muslim: ‘‘It was a regular feature to see Vishwa Hindu Parishad cadre getting down at Godhra station and shouting provocative slogans.’’
Despite the atmosphere getting vitiated and the possibility of daily provocation, the railways and the state government did not seem to have put its policemen on alert. The protection of railway property is the concern of the RPF, but it failed to guard the train that was torched at the outer signal of the station. Passenger safety comes under the jurisdiction of the state government’s GRP.
At the Railway Board here, officials allege that most of the RPF and GRP men on duty were not available when the mobs attacked the train. But Railway minister Nitish Kumar said that he checked out the facts and was sure that the rpf tried its best to tackle the situation. ‘‘Outside vital installations, the RPF is not empowered to open fire. We are seeking an amendment to the Railway Act and RPF act to get it empowered so that it would be responsible to tackle such situations. What can the people at the station do? Maintaining peace and law and order is the responsibility of the state government. How can railway personnel anticipate trouble?’’ asked Nitish Kumar, who has cancelled his scheduled Patna trip to monitor the situation.
Rail Bhawan has not officially commented on the sequence of events that led to the death of 58 people. So far, the ministry has not explained how many RPF and GRP men were on duty and why there was no intelligence input from the local administration and precautionary action against the worsening mood on the godhra railway station. Also officials have not explained how a 2000-strong mob — if that indeed was the figure — could collect on the railway track and how the armed RPF and the GRP failed to disperse them.
The suspicion that godhra incident was ‘‘premeditated’’ brings the Railway and state police’s inaction into sharper focus. Another cause for concern is the bulk booking of tickets by politicians for the karsevaks. Kumar pointed out that, ‘‘Rules permit bulk booking of tickets and anybody can do it. But now we have stopped it for obvious reasons.’’
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
New Delhi: The gruesome tragedy at Godhra railway station, was ‘‘waiting to happen.’’ Yet, this important station with a Railway Protection Force post of around 50 armed policemen could do little to stop the mob from torching the Sabarmati Express on February 27 — and thereby the entire state.
The posse from the state government’s Government Railway Police (GRP) too failed to protect passengers. For the past three weeks, the three Sabarmati Expresses have been carrying karsevaks to and from Ayodhya, halting daily at Godhra.
According to a railway official, the area surrounding the Godhra railway station is predominantly Muslim and most of the vendors at the station are Muslim: ‘‘It was a regular feature to see Vishwa Hindu Parishad cadre getting down at Godhra station and shouting provocative slogans.’’
Despite the atmosphere getting vitiated and the possibility of daily provocation, the railways and the state government did not seem to have put its policemen on alert. The protection of railway property is the concern of the RPF, but it failed to guard the train that was torched at the outer signal of the station. Passenger safety comes under the jurisdiction of the state government’s GRP.
At the Railway Board here, officials allege that most of the RPF and GRP men on duty were not available when the mobs attacked the train. But Railway minister Nitish Kumar said that he checked out the facts and was sure that the rpf tried its best to tackle the situation. ‘‘Outside vital installations, the RPF is not empowered to open fire. We are seeking an amendment to the Railway Act and RPF act to get it empowered so that it would be responsible to tackle such situations. What can the people at the station do? Maintaining peace and law and order is the responsibility of the state government. How can railway personnel anticipate trouble?’’ asked Nitish Kumar, who has cancelled his scheduled Patna trip to monitor the situation.
Rail Bhawan has not officially commented on the sequence of events that led to the death of 58 people. So far, the ministry has not explained how many RPF and GRP men were on duty and why there was no intelligence input from the local administration and precautionary action against the worsening mood on the godhra railway station. Also officials have not explained how a 2000-strong mob — if that indeed was the figure — could collect on the railway track and how the armed RPF and the GRP failed to disperse them.
The suspicion that godhra incident was ‘‘premeditated’’ brings the Railway and state police’s inaction into sharper focus. Another cause for concern is the bulk booking of tickets by politicians for the karsevaks. Kumar pointed out that, ‘‘Rules permit bulk booking of tickets and anybody can do it. But now we have stopped it for obvious reasons.’’
Godhra list: Railway report shifts track
15 Mar 2003
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Two passengers certified as "survivors" of the Godhra carnage six months ago by the railways have now been declared "dead", while one "survivor" has since gone "missing". The report tabled in Parliament by the railway minister has only added to the mystery of the Sabarmati Express' ill-fated S-6 coach.
The Railways' report on the Godhra tragedy of February 27 contradicts another official document the Railways gave The Times of India on August 17 last year. In the earlier document, the Railways claimed that 32 passengers of S-6 were not even hurt ("travelled safely"), 7 were missing and 4 were dead. Sushila (25) and her daughter Pratibha (7) and Nanhkaunu (61) were among those who were listed as having travelled safely.
In the new report, the Railways claim that 28 passengers were not hurt, but have listed Sushila and Pratibha as "dead" on the basis of DNA tests" and Nanhkaunu as missing. Another passenger, Raju, who was shown to have travelled safely is now claimed to have cancelled his ticket. There is also no information in the new report about two passengers who were declared missing earlier.
B K Singh, who travelled in S-1, and Meena Kumari in S-2 were shown as missing earlier, but they are not referred to in the new report. In fact, Meena Kumari had the same address as that of two others in S-6 who have now been identified dead. After DNA testing, the number of dead from S-6 has gone up from four to 11. Yet, the majority, 48 out of the 59 dead, were not from S-6.
Rajesh Ramachandran
The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Two passengers certified as "survivors" of the Godhra carnage six months ago by the railways have now been declared "dead", while one "survivor" has since gone "missing". The report tabled in Parliament by the railway minister has only added to the mystery of the Sabarmati Express' ill-fated S-6 coach.
The Railways' report on the Godhra tragedy of February 27 contradicts another official document the Railways gave The Times of India on August 17 last year. In the earlier document, the Railways claimed that 32 passengers of S-6 were not even hurt ("travelled safely"), 7 were missing and 4 were dead. Sushila (25) and her daughter Pratibha (7) and Nanhkaunu (61) were among those who were listed as having travelled safely.
In the new report, the Railways claim that 28 passengers were not hurt, but have listed Sushila and Pratibha as "dead" on the basis of DNA tests" and Nanhkaunu as missing. Another passenger, Raju, who was shown to have travelled safely is now claimed to have cancelled his ticket. There is also no information in the new report about two passengers who were declared missing earlier.
B K Singh, who travelled in S-1, and Meena Kumari in S-2 were shown as missing earlier, but they are not referred to in the new report. In fact, Meena Kumari had the same address as that of two others in S-6 who have now been identified dead. After DNA testing, the number of dead from S-6 has gone up from four to 11. Yet, the majority, 48 out of the 59 dead, were not from S-6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)