As the series of lies peddled by the propaganda website The Wire is exposed recently, it becomes evident to revisit how its founder, Siddharth Varadarajan, habitually peddled anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim lies in the past. A classic case of pushing blatant falsehoods is that of his writings about the Godhra train burning incident of 2002 in which 59 innocent Hindu Karsevaks, including women, and children were burnt alive in coach S6 of the Sabarmati express.
The liberal media held Hindus responsible not only for the subsequent riots in Gujarat but also for the Godhra carnage. Various theories were made up to explain how the train bogie caught fire. The reasons explained included everything except the proven reality that a mob of Muslims first stoned the train and then set the coach on fire. Nanavati-Mehta Commission had concluded that it was a mob of Muslims that set the train coach ablaze. Still, during the riots and even months after that, Siddharth Varadarajan wrote articles that promoted theories which held Hindus responsible for the fire and subsequent riots.
Proofs of Muslims burning the train coach at Godhra
On 27th February 2002, the Sabarmati express was scheduled to reach Godhra station at about 3:30 am. On that day, the train was running four hours late. It arrived at Godhra by 7:40 am. At 7:48 am, a mob of 2000 Muslims set 59 Hindus, including 25 women and 15 children, in the coach S6 of the train on fire in Godhra’s predominantly Muslim area – Signal Falia situated at some distance from the station alongside the rail track. Detailed information about the Godhra carnage and subsequent riots in the state is compiled by M D Deshpande on his website and his book on the analysis could be read here.
31 Muslims were found guilty of the Godhra massacre on February 22, 2011, by the trial court (with only 11 receiving the death penalty and 20 receiving life in prison), and all 31 convictions were affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in October 2017, resulting in everyone receiving a life sentence. Prior to that, based on the testimony of witnesses and survivors, it was obvious to anybody with even a modicum of intellectual integrity that Muslims had set the train on fire.
In February 2003, an accused person made a judicial confession in which he acknowledged that Godhra was a well-planned attack and that he had personally participated in it. A judicial confession is conclusive evidence. This proves that the Godhra carnage was a preplanned attack on the innocent Karsevaks.
Post-Godhra lies by Siddharth Varadarajan
Siddharth Varadarajan went on to become one of the significant anti-Hindu voices whitewashing the Muslims of the blots they bore out of the heinous act of burning innocent Hindus alive, committed in Godhra. Let’s start with the actual day of violence. On 1st March 2002, Siddharth Varadarajan wrote an article in the Time of India. In the article, he wrote, “While official inquiry will establish the extent to which the attack on the Sabarmati Express was pre-meditated, there can be no doubt about the planned nature of the violence directed against Gujarat’s Muslims on Thursday (28th February).”
It must be noted that, according to Varadarajan, “official inquiry” will determine whether or not the attack on the karsevaks was intentional. However, he decides for himself whether the Hindu attacks on Gujarat’s Muslims were “pre-planned” in character when it comes to their violent response on February 28. Evidently, the horrible crime of Godhra, which was meticulously prepared, was not referred to as a “planned” crime, but the obvious spontaneous reaction was labelled as “pre-planned.”
Siddharth Varadarajan continued to whitewash Muslims even in 2004
In August 2004, Siddharth Varadarajan wrote articles in The Hindu about the Godhra carnage and subsequent riots in Gujarat. In one article he wrote, “When the Gujarat police arrested former tea vendor Usman Abdul Gani “Coffeewala” earlier this month, the Special Investigating Team probing the incident in which 58 persons were killed outside the Godhra station two years ago, described him, rather predictably, as a “key accused” in the case. For the record, Coffeewala is now the 18th “key accused” in the case, allegedly a crucial part of the improbably large “inner circle” that hatched a “jihadi conspiracy” to kill activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad a few days before the Sabarmati Express pulled into Godhra on the morning of February 27, 2002….For the Sangh Parivar, Godhra is where it all began — the spark that lit the fire which ended up taking the lives of as many as 2,000 Muslims.”
In this way, he falsely claimed that 2,000 Muslims died in the post-Godhra riots, inflating the figure to more than twice the actual and that no Hindus died, despite the fact that more than 250 Hindus also perished after Godhra.
Siddharth Varadarajan doubted police investigations and negated eyewitness accounts
Siddharth Varadarajan added, “Two years on, the police cannot offer a credible account of how coach S-6 caught fire. They are clueless about what flammable substance caused the death and destruction that morning. And their description of the events simply does not square with the evidence that is accumulating before the Nanavati Commission of Inquiry. Indeed the deliberate politicization of the incident has led to the sacrificing of conventional investigative techniques. Questions and leads raised by forensic evidence (that the flammable liquid could not have been thrown in from outside, for instance) and eyewitness testimonies are being ignored. Is this just in case the investigation ends up deviating too much from the official script? Which is of a “conspiracy” that was “pre-planned” to such an extent that three days before the Sabarmati Express left Faizabad, Maulana Umerji was able to divine that the ticketless karsevaks would be boarding S-6 and no other coach.”
Siddharth Vardarajan further wrote, “Based on eyewitness testimony, what is indisputable is that a mob consisting of residents from the nearby Muslim locality of Signal Falia, as well as individuals who might have run after the train from the station, stoned S-6. Several passengers also testified that burning rags were flung at the coach. If the eyewitness testimony is correct and no one from the mob boarded the train to pour petrol or any other flammable liquid, how did the fire start? Could the burning rags have ignited the fire, a possibility that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report discounts? And what accounts for the thick, black, acrid smoke which many S-6 passengers remember more than the fire? Is there a design flaw in the construction of Indian railcars that makes them fire-prone? Was some flammable material already present in the coach, like gas or kerosene, which caught fire inadvertently? Was there an agent provocateur on board bent on causing maximum damage?”
Eyewitness account says Muslims set the train on fire
Now, let’s see what the eyewitness account said about it. In the March 2006 issue of Outlook, a report was published. This report includes the following two paragraphs:
Gayatri Panchal, a resident of Ahmedabad, who survived the incident on February 27, 2002, but lost both her parents in her reaction to the report has said, “The report of the Banerjee Commission is absolutely wrong. I have seen everything with my own eyes and barely escaped myself but lost both my parents.”
Panchal, who has three sisters, said the Banerjee Commission report was not correct as the fire could not have been accidental as no one was cooking in the S-6 coach and it was packed with passengers. “Mobs pelted stones at the coach for a long and then threw in burning rags and also poured some inflammable material so that the coach was on fire. I will maintain the same wherever I am called to depose on the matter,” Panchal said.
So, it is clear that, according to the eyewitness account, coach S-6 caught fire when Muslims drenched it in gasoline, set it ablaze, and circled the railway from all sides to prevent the Ramsewaks from leaving, according to the police’s obviously plausible statement. Varadarajan is the only one who is unable to provide a plausible explanation for how the coach caught fire. He just does not believe that Muslims intentionally set the train on fire, despite the fact that he does believe they stoned it.
What does the Nanavati-Mehta commission conclude about the fire?
In an attempt to give a clean chit to Muslims, he further wrote, “Instead of asking these questions, the SIT is insisting on going ahead with its conspiracy theory. Even if a POTA court convicts many of those accused — on the basis of confessions by approvers such as Zabir bin Yamin Behra — of taking part in the attack on S-6, if not being part of the “jihadi conspiracy,” the overall evidence is so contradictory that these convictions are likely to get vacated on appeal.”
As Siddharth Varadarajan questioned SIT’s work, it becomes necessary to refer to the Nanavati-Mehta commission’s comments which cite the forensic science laboratory’s reports. The report denies all the possibilities and conspiracies raised by Muslims and liberal activists inventing multiple reasons for the coach being set ablaze. These theories included ideas of an imaginary scuffle between Karsevaks and the local Muslim vendors, and an equally untrue incident of Hindus molesting a Muslim girl. Here is what the commission has concluded:
“From the evidence of all these witnesses and other material on record it becomes clear that except overcrowding in the train and occasional raising of slogans inside the train and on platforms of the intervening stations, the Ramsevaks had not done anything and no incident had happened earlier which could have led to the incident which later on happened at Godhra. In absence of any evidence whatsoever indicating any incident on the way, the Commission has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the suggestion made by JamiateUlma-E-Hind that a quarrel had taken place between Ramsevaks and vendors at Ujjain railway station is without any basis. Its journey from Ayodhya to Godhra was trouble-free.”
‘Gujarat riots would definitely take place even if there was no Godhra carnage’
In August 2004, Siddharth Varadarajan wrote another article. In this article, he claimed that the Gujarat riots would definitely take place even if there was no Godhra carnage. He wrote, “Far from being a spontaneous mass reaction to the attack on the Sabarmati Express at Godhra the day before in which 58 Hindu passengers died, the killings across most of Gujarat seemed scripted. So well chosen were the targets that it is almost as if there was already in place a plan to do something dramatic as part of the ongoing Ayodhya agitation, probably in order to polarise the state on communal lines in the run-up to state elections that the BJP might have had some difficulty winning on the basis of its actual performance. If Godhra hadn’t happened, would it have been necessary to invent it? I don’t know, but the Godhra incident itself is so shrouded in mystery that it is almost as if the official narrative which emerged within minutes and hours of the train being consumed by fire is an invented one, conveniently conjured up to provide the “rationale” for the pogrom which had simultaneously been ordained.”
How low one can take himself in an attempt of denying the unpleasant fact that Muslims burned the train in Godhra and hint that perhaps post-Godhra would have taken place even if Godhra had not occurred? And entirely disregarding the heinous attacks on and deaths of Hindus while labelling the riots a “pogrom”!
Lalu Yadav appointed a committee to conclude that it was an accidental fire
The Banerjee Committee, set by then railways minister Lalu Yadav, released its interim report on Godhra in January 2005. As was predicted, the report attempted to cover up Muslims’ horrific crime by calling it an “accident” while failing to explain why the Ramsewaks did not flee the train if there was no Muslim mob surrounding it or why the fire was accidental. Lalu used the findings made by the committee he created in the January–February 2005 elections for the Bihar Assembly.
On the other hand, the report of the Nanavati-Mehta commission mentions that the theories of ‘accidental fire’ were floated after Forensic Science Lab in its report dated 7th May 2002 mentioned how the windows of the train were too high for anyone to have thrown inflammable liquid inside. The Nanavati-Mehta Commission report found this evidence during the course of their investigation regarding the FSL report. The FSL had prepared four reports on the basis of their examination. Some samples were also sent to the lab and a report on them was also made.
“Two more reports were prepared by the Chemistry Division of their laboratory of which Shri D.V. Talati, was the head. He has stated that the opinion expressed in report no. 1 that a person standing outside coach S/6 could not have applied force to the bars of the windows was in the context of the query viz. whether a man standing on the ground could have applied force to the bars of the windows. He stated that if a man had tried to raise himself or if he was lifted by somebody then he could have applied force on the bars. His examination of the coach had indicated that inflammable material must have been thrown while standing in the passage between seat no.72 and the eastern door of the coach,” The Commission report states.
Regarding the fire and its origin, D V Talati had told the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, “About 60 litres of inflammable liquid must have been used in burning that coach. The floor of the coach in some places was totally burnt. After explaining the difference between a fire in an open space and a fire in a confined place, he stated that the phenomenon of flashover can happen in a place that is small and completely closed. The size of S/6 was quite big. Its total area of it was 5000 sq. ft. Therefore, there was no possibility of a flashover in that coach unless the fire was big. The fire had not started from below the coach. The total quantity of liquid that was required for burning the coach could not have been thrown from outside, nor the fire which took place in S/6 could have been caused only by the burning rags thrown in it. As there was more damage in the eastern part of the coach, he had come to the conclusion that the fire had originated in the eastern part of that coach.”
Siddharth Varadarajan used the Banerjee committee’s report as the foundation of his new allegations
After the release of the Banerjee report on 17 January 2005, on 23 Jan 2005 Siddharth Varadarajan wrote in The Hindu:
“Nevertheless, the burden of evidence gathered so far definitely does not seem to support the pre-planned conspiracy theory of the police. Mr Justice Banerjee and the Hazards Centre experts aver that the fire was most likely caused by an accident, though there is no doubting the fact that coach S-6 was stoned by an angry mob.
That there was an accidental fire at the same time an angry mob was throwing stones from outside might seem like something of a coincidence. Perhaps it was the panic induced by the stoning which made an accident more likely — a half-smoked cigarette thrown down carelessly, a stove used for making tea not turned off properly. By now all narratives agree that a fracas broke out on the platform between aggressive karsevaks and Muslim vendors. A Muslim girl was molested by them.”
About the alleged incident of molesting a Muslim girl, the Nanavati-Mehta commission said, “The version given by her does not appear to be true. If they had really gone to the station for going to Vadodara, they would have boarded the Sabarmati Express train as it would have taken them to Vadodara earlier, but they had not done so. The alleged attempt to abduct her was made while they were near the bookstall. That would mean that they were almost in the middle of the covered portion of the platform and very close to the offices of the railway staff. The evidence discloses that there were many persons on the platform.
Apart from passengers, many Muslim vendors were there. The railway staff was present in their offices. Some policemen were also present. If she had raised shouts to save her then they would have been heard at least by some persons who were near about but not a single vendor or anyone else has come forward to support her version. According to her evidence, they had then gone inside the office of the booking clerk. They did not inform anyone there about what had happened. When inside that office, they had no reason to be afraid of anything thereafter and return immediately to their relative’s place instead of waiting for the Memu train which was about to arrive. Her explanation that she was much frightened and had giddiness and, therefore, they had decided not to go back to Vadodara on that day, does not appear to be true.”
Siddharth Varadarajan not only insulted the dead Karsevaks by spreading a lie that they had molested a Muslim girl, but he also went on to invent new conspiracies of cooking stoves and cigarettes despite the fact that there was enough proof and evidence available to establish the fact that setting the coach on fire was a well-planned crime committed by a mob of Muslims.
Why it is necessary to expose Siddharth Varadarajan and his blatant lies?
The works of these so-called secularists must be made public in order for people to see through their attempt to downplay the fanaticism of Muslims. The Godhra massacre is the clearest illustration of the ruthless inhumanity of these Leftists, as seen by their sympathy for vile criminals, their blame of innocent victims—including infants and toddlers—and their use of absurd falsehoods and mental tricks to justify the inexcusable. All of their falsehoods about downplaying Muslim fanaticism can be easily understood if their actions after the Godhra atrocity are exposed.
After two decades, Siddharth Varadarajan’s propaganda website ‘The Wire’ took its old ‘responsibility of journalism’ to whitewash Islamists. In this attempt, The Wire has gone so far beyond the point of no return to the make-sense land that it continues to expose itself every other day. Revisiting the lies peddled by its founder Siddharth Varadarajan in the past and exposing them with facts and evidence is therefore very important.
