It took place in 2002 — a tragedy that will never be forgotten. The Gujarat Carnage remains one of the bloodiest chapters in post-independent India. On 27 February 2002, the S-6 compartment of the Sabarmati Express travelling from Faizabad to Ahmedabad was set ablaze near Godhra railway station, leading to the tragic deaths of 59 innocent people. The incident was widely condemned. Several individuals were later convicted, though debate continues about the cause of the fire, with some maintaining there is evidence suggesting it may have been accidental. Whatever the cause, such deaths leave an irreplaceable void in the lives of grieving families.
What followed was violence on a scale that shocked the nation. In the days and weeks after Godhra, Muslims across Gujarat were attacked — killed, assaulted, raped, and dispossessed of homes and livelihoods. Eyewitness accounts alleged that then Chief Minister Narendra Modi held a late-evening meeting on 27 February with senior officials; the minutes were never made public. The subsequent violence was widespread and prolonged. Thousands were affected. Allegations surfaced that elements within the law-and-order machinery failed to act and, in some instances, sided with perpetrators.
On 21 November 2002, the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge V. R. Krishna Iyer released its report, Crime Against Humanity. Based on over 2,000 testimonies, it indicted the Government of Gujarat for failing to prevent the violence and described the events as systematic and targeted rather than spontaneous. The report and other independent findings suggested that the attacks were organized, economically devastating to the Muslim community, and marked by participation across social strata. It alleged that detailed data had been used to identify targets and that the violence bore the marks of state complicity.
Judicial scrutiny followed. In 2003, then Chief Justice V. N. Khare sharply criticized the Gujarat government’s handling of riot prosecutions. In 2012, Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya observed that the state’s inadequate response had led to prolonged anarchy. The Supreme Court appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine key cases, including Zakia Jafri’s complaint regarding the killing of her husband, former MP Ehsan Jafri. In 2022, a bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar upheld the SIT’s closure report, which found no prosecutable evidence of a larger conspiracy involving top officials. While the judgment stands, some survivors remain unconvinced.
In January 2023, the BBC aired a two-part documentary, India: The Modi Question, revisiting allegations about the state’s role during the violence. The Government of India rejected the film as propaganda. Two decades later, the events of 2002 continue to evoke pain, debate, and the enduring demand for truth and justice.
At the very start the of the Documentary, the BBC screens two strong and telling statements on behalf of the “More than 30 people in India declined to take part in this series because of fears about their safety” and “The Indian Government declined to comment on the allegations made in this film”. One can conclude several things from these statements; these include that many people know the truth, they would like to do so but they are frightened to do so: yes, fear is palpable in several sections of Indian society today. Secondly, the BBC wanted the Government’s comments on the film so presumably Indian authorities were given a chance to watch the film earlier and rebut it if necessary. The Government declined to do so which could easily imply that the BBC film had incontrovertible footage and evidence, the factuality of which cannot be challenged by anyone.
The film also highlights that the report quoting unnamed sources says that Modi met senior police officers and “ordered them not to intervene” in the attacks on Muslims. Footage in the film clearly shows how the police stood by as Muslims were targeted: victims of arson and loot, rape and murder. “A conservative estimate based on information from reliable human rights contacts puts the number of deaths at 2000 … The killing was accompanied in many areas by widespread and systemic rape of Muslim women, sometimes by police…. police contacts accept that implicit state Government pressure inhibited their response.” Further the document says that “the violence was politically motivated” and the aim “was to purge Muslims from Hindu areas”. It concluded that “the riots were impossible without the climate of impunity created by the state government …”
Nearly twenty-four years later, fatigue has set in for some. A section of society prefers to move on, urging closure. Others feel vindicated. Many human rights defenders persist, though often facing intimidation and legal challenges. Activists such as Teesta Setalvad and former officials like R. B. Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt have continued to seek accountability despite formidable obstacles.
As Gujarat looks ahead — even aspiring to host major international events in the coming decade — memories of 2002 remain deeply etched in the hearts of survivors. Development and global recognition cannot erase the trauma of those who lost loved ones, homes, and livelihoods. Reconciliation requires truth, justice, and acknowledgment.
The Gujarat Carnage of 2002 will not be forgotten. It stands as a solemn reminder of the fragility of communal harmony and the grave responsibility of those in power. The hope endures that one day, in the spirit of Satyameva Jayate — truth alone triumphs — healing and justice will prevail.
- By Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ
