It took place in 2002 — a tragedy that will never be forgotten. The Gujarat Carnage 2002 remains one of the bloodiest chapters in post-independence India. The burning of the S-6 compartment of the Sabarmati Express (from Faizabad to Ahmedabad), some distance from the Godhra railway station in Gujarat, on 27 February, which tragically resulted in the deaths of 59 people — was, and continues to be, strongly condemned. Several persons were convicted for this act, though there is still a debate on what caused the fire. Some argue that there is sufficient evidence to suggest it may have been an accident. The sad fact remains that any death, particularly one so tragic, leaves a profound void in the lives and hearts of loved ones left behind.
What followed this tragedy, however, was a carnage beyond comprehension — unjustifiable and unacceptable. According to eyewitness accounts, the then Chief Minister of the State, Narendra Modi, convened a meeting of senior BJP leaders and government functionaries late in the evening of 27 February. There are differing accounts of what transpired at this meeting — the minutes were never made public — but the consequences were devastating: Muslims across Gujarat were brutalized, raped, dispossessed of their lands and homes, and murdered. The intensity and duration of the violence amounted, in the view of many observers, to a crime against humanity. Thousands were affected across the State. Statistics pale in comparison to the brutality witnessed. For weeks, and even months, mobs indulged in some of the most despicable acts. Furthermore, the law-and-order machinery was seen not only as having abdicated its responsibility but, in some instances, as allegedly siding with perpetrators.
On 21 November 2002, the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal, consisting of several eminent citizens and headed by Justice V. Krishna Iyer (former Judge of the Supreme Court of India), made public a report entitled Crime Against Humanity. The report documented detailed findings on the Gujarat Carnage. It was based on more than 2,000 oral and written testimonies, individual and collective, from survivor-victims, as well as from independent human rights groups, women’s organizations, NGOs, academics, and concerned citizens. The Tribunal, in its findings and recommendations, indicted the Government of Gujarat and held it responsible for the unfettered violence, murder, arson, and looting that took place.
The findings of the Tribunal were echoed by several other independent groups. These included assertions that:
• what occurred in Gujarat was not merely communal violence or rioting, but amounted, in their assessment, to genocide, carnage, and ethnic cleansing designed to marginalize and potentially eliminate a community.
• the violence appeared organized rather than spontaneous. The preparations, many argued, must have taken months. A Gujarati daily had earlier listed several hotels run by the Chiliya community that bore non-Islamic names; during the violence, many of these establishments were destroyed. A census of Muslims and Christians conducted in 1999 was allegedly used to identify and target properties.
• the violence severely damaged the economic backbone of the Muslim community.
• segments of the middle class, including educated and affluent individuals, were reportedly involved, while relatively few people publicly opposed the violence at the time.
• in certain areas, Adivasis and Dalits were allegedly mobilized in acts of arson and looting of Muslim homes and establishments.
• the violence bore the characteristics of state complicity, according to the Tribunal’s findings. In addition to political leaders, several bureaucrats and police officials were indicted. The Sangh Parivar was said to have operated with impunity. There were allegations that police were instructed not to intervene, and in some cases were complicit. A sting operation conducted by Tehelka which was made public in October 2007 was cited as providing additional material in this regard.
In December 2003, then Chief Justice of India V. N. Khare, presiding over a divisional bench of the Supreme Court, sharply criticized the Gujarat Government, stating: “I have no faith left in the prosecution and the Gujarat Government. I am not saying Article 356. You have to protect people and punish the guilty. What else is raj dharma? You quit if you cannot prosecute the guilty.”
In a ruling dated 8 February 2012, Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat Bhaskar Bhattacharya stated: “Gujarat government’s inadequate response and inaction (to contain the riots) resulted in an anarchic situation which continued unabated for days on… the state cannot shirk from its responsibilities.”
Amid mounting allegations, the Supreme Court of India appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine certain cases, including a complaint filed by the late Zakia Jafri, who passed away on 1 February 2025 at the age of 86, concerning the killing of her husband, former Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri, and others. Critics have argued that the functioning of the SIT itself was not beyond question. Allegations were made that the report contained lapses and failed to adequately examine the culpability of powerful actors.
In June 2022, a three-judge Bench led by Justice A. M. Khanwilkar upheld the closure report filed by the SIT in Ms. Jafri’s complaint. The SIT had concluded that there was no prosecutable evidence against Mr. Modi or other senior officials. The Gujarat High Court had earlier, in October 2017, declined to entertain Ms. Jafri’s plea. Justice Khanwilkar, authoring the 452-page judgment, stated that “no fault can be found with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report dated February 8, 2012, which is backed by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State against the minority community during the relevant period.” While the judgment commands constitutional respect, many who witnessed the events continue to express dissatisfaction and unresolved anguish.
On 17 January 2023, the BBC, the independent British news channel aired the first part of a two-part documentary titled India: The Modi Question (the second part aired on 24 January). The documentary alleged that Narendra Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat, instructed police to refrain from intervening during the violence; the second part details how Muslims have been systematically targeted in India ever since Modi came to power. It also examined broader concerns regarding the treatment of Muslims in India in subsequent years.
At the beginning of the documentary, the BBC displayed two statements: “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.” These statements were interpreted by some as indicative of a climate of fear and of the Government’s decision not to formally engage with the documentary’s claims. The film also included voices supportive of the Government, presenting a range of perspectives.
The documentary further referred to a previously unpublished UK Government internal brief prepared by the Home Office concerning the 2002 violence. According to the film, the document suggested that the violence “was planned, possibly in advance” by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a Hindu nationalist organisation adding that, “the attack on the train at Godhra on 27 February provided the pretext. If it had not occurred, another one would have been found.” Further, the report cites evidence for stating the violence was pre-planned, “Police contacts confirmed that rioters used computerised lists to target Muslim homes and businesses. The accuracy and detail of the lists, including businesses with minority Muslim share-holding, suggest that they were prepared in advance.”
The most defining statements say, “the VHP and its allies acted with the support of the state Government. They could not have inflicted so much damage without the climate of impunity created by the state Government. Chief Minister Narendra Modi is directly responsible. His actions have not just been guided by a cynical assessment of political advantage. As an architect of the BJP’s Hindu nationalist agenda which it has pursued since it came to power in 1995, he is a believer in the VHP’s ideological motivation.” In short, the confidential report indicts the State Government of Gujarat with and unequivocal statement, “Chief Minister Narendra Modi is directly responsible.” Part of the documentary is the role played by Haren Pandya (a former Home Minister of Gujarat) and how he exposes the Modi regime for their complicity. Pandya was assassinated on 26 March 2003!
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 …”
The Government of India subsequently banned the documentary, characterizing it as propaganda.
Twenty-four years after those horrific days, a sense of fatigue is visible in some quarters. Some perpetrators claim vindication; some survivors ask whether it is time to move on. Certain human rights defenders appear weary. Sections of the media that once spoke forcefully have grown cautious. Fear, many say, is palpable.
Gujarat is now preparing to host major international events, including the Commonwealth Games proposed for 2030 in Ahmedabad. Efforts are underway to project the State as dynamic and welcoming. At the same time, concerns have been raised about demolitions affecting poor communities, including Muslims and Dalits. Activists such as Teesta Setalvad, R. B. Sreekumar, Rupa Modi, and Sanjiv Bhatt continue to pursue what they describe as justice and accountability.
The road ahead is not easy. It involves confronting power, money, and manipulation. Yet for many, the events of 2002 remain indelibly etched in memory. The Gujarat Carnage 2002 will not be forgotten. There remains hope that one day justice and truth will prevail — Satyameva Jayate.
Fr Cedric Prakash SJ is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist and writer. Contact him at cedricprakash@gmail.com.
