Godhra Train Burning: Three Versions Of A Tragic Incident

Since the release of Mohanlal’s Empuraan, which vividly portrays the Gujarat riots of 2002, the Godhra train burning incident has once again become a major topic of discussion.

The film, directed by Prithviraj, has sparked a renewed debate over the causes and consequences of the tragedy. As the movie takes viewers through the turbulent aftermath of the Godhra incident, people have begun to revisit the different versions of what happened.

The portrayal of these events in Empuraan has brought the complexities of the riots, the role of politics, and the deep-seated communal divisions back into the spotlight, prompting many to question the established narratives and the true story behind the horrific violence.

Also, read| Who Is Baba Bajrangi In Real-Life Whose Name Will Be Muted In Empuraan

The Godhra train burning incident, which took place on February 27, 2002, has remained one of the most contentious events in Indian history, serving as a flashpoint for the deadly Gujarat riots that followed.

On that morning, a fire engulfed the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express near the Godhra railway station, killing 59 people, mostly Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya.

The tragic event quickly escalated into widespread violence, with Muslims becoming the primary targets of attacks across Gujarat. However, the exact cause of the fire has been the subject of intense debate, with three major versions of the incident continuing to divide public opinion.

Here are the three versions/investigations of the Godhra Tragedy

The first version of the Godhra incident, presented by the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, suggests that the fire was a result of a pre-planned act of arson.

According to the commission’s findings, a mob of around 2,000 Muslims set the train on fire as part of a coordinated attack. The commission alleged that individuals in Godhra had conspired to target the train, using petrol-soaked rags and other incendiary materials to cause the fire.

The report named several key figures, including local cleric Maulvi Husain Haji Ibrahim Umarji, as masterminds behind the attack.

This version has been widely criticised by some groups who see it as an attempt to politicise the tragedy and inflame communal passions. However, in the legal proceedings that followed, this account was used as the basis for convictions, with 31 Muslims sentenced for their involvement in the incident.

Also, read| Amidst Hindutva Hate Campaign, 17 Cuts In L2: Empuraan?

On the other hand, a second version, notably advanced by the Banerjee Commission, suggests that the fire was purely accidental.

According to this inquiry, the fire started inside the coach, likely due to some form of accident, and not as a result of any deliberate attack. The Banerjee Commission’s report was critical of the forensic evidence and raised doubts about the alleged premeditated nature of the attack.

This version proposed that the train’s passengers may have caused the fire by accidentally setting a flammable material alight or through some other unintentional action.

Although the Banerjee Commission’s findings were overturned by the Gujarat High Court, some independent analysts and NGOs have supported the accidental fire theory, arguing that the initial investigations did not conclusively prove the arson theory.

Also, read: What Are The 24 Cuts Made In Empuraan?

The third version of the incident builds on the idea of a larger conspiracy, but with a focus on political and religious motives rather than a purely local act of arson.

This narrative suggests that the fire may have been orchestrated not just by local extremists but also as part of a larger effort to stoke communal violence across the state.

Critics of the Gujarat government have argued that the state machinery either tacitly allowed or actively facilitated the mob attack to create an atmosphere of fear and unrest, which would justify an aggressive crackdown on Muslim communities across Gujarat. This version paints the Godhra incident as part of a broader political strategy to consolidate Hindu votes by portraying Muslims as the aggressors.

Some scholars and activists contend that the fire’s aftermath—the horrific riots that targeted Muslims—was as much a consequence of the incident being manipulated for political ends as it was the result of a tragic event.