Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 52, Issue No. 48, 02 Dec, 2017
When Even Memory of a Riot Dies
Jyoti Punwani (jyoti.punwani[at]gmail.com) is a Mumbai-based journalist.
Although the 1992–93 Mumbai riots, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, were investigated by an inquiry commission headed by Justice B N Srikrishna, there have been hardly any convictions even as some victims doggedly fight on for justice. This article traces the journey for justice of victims of the Bombay riots in the face of the indifference of successive state governments and the convoluted justice system.
In October 2017, a familiar scene played out in a sessions court in Mumbai. A constable informed the judge that the police had not been able to trace the complainant. A new date was given, and the accused in the case trooped out. The complainant was a policeman, no longer residing at his old address. With their vast resources, the Mumbai Police had not been able to trace one of their own, who, just six years back, had been an assistant commissioner of police (ACP).
But the public prosecutor was not unduly perturbed, for this was just one of the many cases he had to handle. In fact, he saw this one as a burden on him, given that it was almost 25 years old.
A year ago the same case was being heard in another court. At that time, it was the investigating officer who could not be traced. His house was locked; long retired, he was visiting his daughter in the United States (US). After some weeks, the public prosecutor urged the judge to issue a warrant against him. But on whom would it be served?
Mysteriously, on the next date, the investigating officer who had apparently gone to the US, returned. But he was of no help in tracing the case files. He knew little of the many twists and turns it had taken, he shrugged. Before the next date could arrive, the case was transferred to another court, and within a few months, to yet another, where it is currently listed.
The accused in this case are serving policemen.
This story of the murder case against Ram Dev Tyagi, Mumbai’s former Police Commissioner, tells you why the families of the 900 persons who were killed in the post-Babri Masjid demolition riots in Mumbai in 1992–93, have yet to get justice, despite a judicial commission of inquiry recording in meticulous detail who was responsible. It was not the usual delays of the legal system that made the victims lose hope, but the deliberate scuttling of the judicial process.
Slow to Act on Promises
It has been 19 years, but one still remembers the shock and euphoria that greeted the tabling of the Justice B N Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry Report on the December 1992–January 1993 Bombay riots, on 6 August 1998. Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray was then the “remote control” of the state, as his party was in power as the senior partner in a coalition government with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But that had not deterred Justice Srikrishna from naming Thackeray as responsible for the anti-Muslim violence in the second phase of the riots (Government of Maharashtra 1998). The commission had also recommended strict action against 31 policemen, indicted for crimes ranging from cold-blooded murder of innocents to inhuman conduct to shielding rioters. The most senior in that list was Tyagi (Government of Maharashtra 1998). With the Sena–BJP government in power, it was evident that the Srikrishna report would not be implemented. Indeed, the then Chief Minister Manohar Joshi only tabled the report in the assembly after being compelled to do so by the Bombay High Court. Along with the report, he also filed an action taken report (ATR) in which the commission’s main findings were rejected.
Yet the excitement created by the Srikrishna Commission’s report did not let matters end there. As copies of the report fell short—the government had printed only enough to distribute in the assembly—private citizens reprinted it. Its findings were publicised in Hindi, Marathi, and Urdu; protest meetings were held, and a Congress social worker, Naseem Arif Khan, filed a petition in the Supreme Court asking for its implementation.
In 1999, the Sena–BJP government was replaced by another coalition government comprising of the Congress party, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and the Samajwadi Party (SP). However, although both the Congress and the NCP had made implementation of the Srikrishna Commission Report an election promise, in the Supreme Court the government counsel refused to declare unequivocally that the government had accepted the report. After repeated questioning by the Court, he said the report would be referred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for further investigation and action (Telegraph 2000). Two of the 31 indicted policemen were then in the CID.
As the government’s ambivalence became clear, public pressure continued. The Nirbhay Bano Andolan sent 20,000 postcards to the chief minister. The Lawyers Legal Aid Committee, which had appeared before the commission, intervened in the case. Its affidavit prompted the then Chief Justice A S Anand to ask the government what action had been taken against Tyagi. His obvious displeasure led to the setting up of a Special Task Force (STF) comprising hand-picked police officers in August 2000, and the filing of a case of murder in 2001 against the former police commissioner and 17 policemen who had, under his command, carried out a raid that had left eight innocents dead.
Why was the Congress–NCP government unwilling to implement the Srikrishna Commission Report?
Unwilling to Act
An inkling of this unwillingness was visible on the day the report was tabled in the assembly and simultaneously rejected. This author asked the then leader of the opposition Chhagan Bhujbal whether his party, the Congress, would launch an agitation for the report’s implementation. “What? And risk the Hindu vote?” he retorted. But after the party won the election and formed the government with the NCP, and the danger of losing the Hindu vote no longer existed, why did it continue to drag its feet over the report’s findings?
There were two reasons for the dilly- dallying. First, Bhujbal held the portfolio as the state’s home minister. He was the one who would have had to take the decisions required to act on the report’s findings. This former Shiv Sainik’s indifference to the report has been mentioned above.
The second reason was the Congress’s tilt towards Hindutva, which was evident in front of the commission. On every matter of importance, from the causes of the riots to the conduct of the police, its submissions by and large reflected the stand taken by the Shiv Sena. In the Bombay High Court, the government’s counsel even defended Thackeray’s inflammatory editorials in the party’s mouthpiece, the Marathi daily Saamna, written during the riots.
To implement the report, the government would have had to reopen 1,358 closed cases (60%) of all riot cases. In many, though not all of these, the accused were Shiv Sainiks. To show the Supreme Court that action was being taken, the STF reopened five cases. This kind of tokenism resulted in acquittals or the cases being closed again. Meanwhile, the Congress welcomed into its ranks Shiv Sainiks, including riot accused, whose names had featured in the report (Telegraph 2005).
Implementing the report would also have meant taking “strict action’’ against the 31 indicted policemen. The government did take action. The STF took legal action against nine of them, eight were charged with murder, of whom six were acquitted. The acquittal was a foregone conclusion since no one was willing to testify in this case. The remaining two were discharged (with help from the STF as will be shown below). One was charged with minor offences. Departmental action was taken against nine others. These actions included “a reprimand,’’ “compulsory retirement,’’ and “increments stopped for two years.’’ No one cared to find out whether such “punishments,’’ mentioned in government affidavits in the Supreme Court, had actually been meted out. One of these policemen died and one had been punished before the report came out. Finally, overruling the findings of a judicial commission comprising a sitting high court judge, the STF exonerated the remaining 11, without even talking to their victims who had testified in front of the commission.
Almost all governments tend to ignore the long-term recommendations of judicial commissions, because they involve altering the functioning of the police. The state government in power then also ignored the Srikrishna Commission’s recommendations on prevention and control of riots, such as punitive measures against policemen for failed prosecutions and closed cases. It also showed no interest in implementing even politically harmless recommendations such as compensating the families of the 165 missing persons of the riots, many of whom were Hindus. [. . .]
FULL TEXT AT: http://www.epw.in/journal/2017/48/25-years-after-babri-masjid/when-even-memory-riot-dies.html
|
Showing posts with label Srikrishna Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Srikrishna Commission. Show all posts
March 30, 2013
[1993 Mumbai] Two decades on, the inconvenient truth
The Hindu, March 30, 2013
Two decades on, the inconvenient truth
Meena Menon
The less privileged survivors of the 1993 Mumbai riots should not be deprived of justice on the grounds that old wounds will be reopened
It is 20 years since two cataclysmic events shook Bombay now Mumbai. If there is recollection now of the first — the communal carnage spread over two months and which killed over 900 people — it is called the reopening old wounds. On the other hand, if you speak about the second, the serial blasts of March 12, 1993, it’s about terror coming home to the city and claiming innocent lives.
Even the State makes a clear demarcation — a judicial commission of inquiry for communal riots, and a designated court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for a terror strike. While the judicial commission’s recommendations are not binding on the government, a designated or special court has complete legal sanction. When carnage in Bombay post the Babri Masjid demolition had somewhat abated, then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao constituted a judicial commission of inquiry. It was to probe the over two-month long violence on January 25, 1993, one and a half months before the city would be shaken and stirred by a series of bomb blasts. While the judicial commission on riots headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna was conducting its hearing, Maharashtra was claimed by a saffron coalition of the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The new government changed the terms of reference of the Srikrishna inquiry to probe the circumstances and the immediate causes of the serial bomb blasts. Then, all of a sudden, on January 23, 1996, the State government disbanded the commission of inquiry on the grounds that it was taking too much time and that it would reopen old wounds. Finally, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee intervened to revive the commission by May 1996. For five years, the commission examined 2,125 affidavits, recorded 502 testimonies and gathered 9,655 pages of evidence and 2,903 documents. Twenty-six police stations were covered by the commission but its report was rejected by the State government which said it was biased.
Commission’s stance
The Srikrishna Commission says that the Shiv Sena-BJP government desired that it go into certain aspects of the serial bomb blasts which occurred on March 12, 1993 and expanded its terms of reference which included finding out the circumstances and the immediate causes of the incidents, commonly known as the serial bomb blasts, whether the riots and the blasts were linked, and whether they were part of a common design.
In its final report, the commission said the riots appeared to have been a causative factor for the bomb blasts. “There is no material placed before the commission indicating that the riots during December 1992 and January 1993 and the serial blasts were a part of a common design. In fact this situation has been accepted by Mahesh Narain Singh who was heading the team of investigators into the serial bomb blasts case. He also emphasizes that the serial bomb blasts were a reaction to the totality of events at Ayodhya and Bombay in December 1992 and January 1993 and the commission is inclined to agree with him.”
Recurrent theme
While rejecting the Commission’s report, the government berated it for not paying enough attention to the blasts while devoting over 600 pages to the riots. With these words, the Shiv Sena-BJP had laid the foundation for erasing the memory of the riots and layering it with a sharp and unforgettable image of the serial blasts.
The theme of reopening old wounds recurred again in a High Court judgment which acquitted the late Shiv Sena chief, Bal Thackeray, in 2007 after the State government appealed in two cases of acquittals of Mr. Thackeray by lower courts. The High Court observed that no ends of justice would be served by digging up the old cases after the expiry of seven years and that they would only revive communal tension. Time has already passed. In a review of these circumstances, it is difficult to find fault with the impugned order passed by the additional chief metropolitan magistrate terminating the proceedings in the two cases, the High Court said.
By 2007, after the designated TADA court sentenced 100 people for their roles in the March 12 serial bomb blasts case, there was uproar from civil rights groups and riot victims. The State government agreed to set up four special courts to expedite 16 of the 253 pending cases. Many important pending cases were not dealt with by these courts though some convictions were handed out. While both the Congress and its ally, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), promised to implement the Srikrishna Commission report in their election manifesto, they did nothing. When special courts were being set up to speed up old riot cases, there was a chorus that this would reopen old wounds.
Yet, when the Supreme Court disposed of appeals by death row convicts and actor Sanjay Dutt in the March 12, 1993 serial blasts case on March 21, 2013, everyone revelled in the reopening of those old wounds. Bollywood was dismayed, people spoke in one voice saying that poor Sanjay Dutt must be forgiven. Hadn’t he spread Mahatma’s Gandhi’s ideals. For people convicted under TADA for disposing of Dutt’s weapons or storing them, there was no reprieve. While they were convicted and sentenced for an act of terror, Dutt got away unstained by the terror tag and with a sentence commuted to five years under the Arms Act. If that didn’t reopen old wounds for his co-accused in the case, nothing will. People also recalled fondly how Dutt’s father, the late Congress leader, Sunil Dutt, had to beseech Bal Thackeray to intervene so that the courts could grant his Sanjay bail after a stint in jail.
The survivors of the riots continue to despair. They can’t even get cases registered against culprits if they happen to be policemen. The Special Investigation Team, formed soon after the riots, closed more cases than it reopened. They have to approach the High Court for registering first information reports or demanding Central Bureau of Investigation inquiries. They have no choice but to reopen old wounds.
meena.menon@thehindu.co.in
Two decades on, the inconvenient truth
Meena Menon
The less privileged survivors of the 1993 Mumbai riots should not be deprived of justice on the grounds that old wounds will be reopened
It is 20 years since two cataclysmic events shook Bombay now Mumbai. If there is recollection now of the first — the communal carnage spread over two months and which killed over 900 people — it is called the reopening old wounds. On the other hand, if you speak about the second, the serial blasts of March 12, 1993, it’s about terror coming home to the city and claiming innocent lives.
Even the State makes a clear demarcation — a judicial commission of inquiry for communal riots, and a designated court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for a terror strike. While the judicial commission’s recommendations are not binding on the government, a designated or special court has complete legal sanction. When carnage in Bombay post the Babri Masjid demolition had somewhat abated, then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao constituted a judicial commission of inquiry. It was to probe the over two-month long violence on January 25, 1993, one and a half months before the city would be shaken and stirred by a series of bomb blasts. While the judicial commission on riots headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna was conducting its hearing, Maharashtra was claimed by a saffron coalition of the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The new government changed the terms of reference of the Srikrishna inquiry to probe the circumstances and the immediate causes of the serial bomb blasts. Then, all of a sudden, on January 23, 1996, the State government disbanded the commission of inquiry on the grounds that it was taking too much time and that it would reopen old wounds. Finally, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee intervened to revive the commission by May 1996. For five years, the commission examined 2,125 affidavits, recorded 502 testimonies and gathered 9,655 pages of evidence and 2,903 documents. Twenty-six police stations were covered by the commission but its report was rejected by the State government which said it was biased.
Commission’s stance
The Srikrishna Commission says that the Shiv Sena-BJP government desired that it go into certain aspects of the serial bomb blasts which occurred on March 12, 1993 and expanded its terms of reference which included finding out the circumstances and the immediate causes of the incidents, commonly known as the serial bomb blasts, whether the riots and the blasts were linked, and whether they were part of a common design.
In its final report, the commission said the riots appeared to have been a causative factor for the bomb blasts. “There is no material placed before the commission indicating that the riots during December 1992 and January 1993 and the serial blasts were a part of a common design. In fact this situation has been accepted by Mahesh Narain Singh who was heading the team of investigators into the serial bomb blasts case. He also emphasizes that the serial bomb blasts were a reaction to the totality of events at Ayodhya and Bombay in December 1992 and January 1993 and the commission is inclined to agree with him.”
Recurrent theme
While rejecting the Commission’s report, the government berated it for not paying enough attention to the blasts while devoting over 600 pages to the riots. With these words, the Shiv Sena-BJP had laid the foundation for erasing the memory of the riots and layering it with a sharp and unforgettable image of the serial blasts.
The theme of reopening old wounds recurred again in a High Court judgment which acquitted the late Shiv Sena chief, Bal Thackeray, in 2007 after the State government appealed in two cases of acquittals of Mr. Thackeray by lower courts. The High Court observed that no ends of justice would be served by digging up the old cases after the expiry of seven years and that they would only revive communal tension. Time has already passed. In a review of these circumstances, it is difficult to find fault with the impugned order passed by the additional chief metropolitan magistrate terminating the proceedings in the two cases, the High Court said.
By 2007, after the designated TADA court sentenced 100 people for their roles in the March 12 serial bomb blasts case, there was uproar from civil rights groups and riot victims. The State government agreed to set up four special courts to expedite 16 of the 253 pending cases. Many important pending cases were not dealt with by these courts though some convictions were handed out. While both the Congress and its ally, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), promised to implement the Srikrishna Commission report in their election manifesto, they did nothing. When special courts were being set up to speed up old riot cases, there was a chorus that this would reopen old wounds.
Yet, when the Supreme Court disposed of appeals by death row convicts and actor Sanjay Dutt in the March 12, 1993 serial blasts case on March 21, 2013, everyone revelled in the reopening of those old wounds. Bollywood was dismayed, people spoke in one voice saying that poor Sanjay Dutt must be forgiven. Hadn’t he spread Mahatma’s Gandhi’s ideals. For people convicted under TADA for disposing of Dutt’s weapons or storing them, there was no reprieve. While they were convicted and sentenced for an act of terror, Dutt got away unstained by the terror tag and with a sentence commuted to five years under the Arms Act. If that didn’t reopen old wounds for his co-accused in the case, nothing will. People also recalled fondly how Dutt’s father, the late Congress leader, Sunil Dutt, had to beseech Bal Thackeray to intervene so that the courts could grant his Sanjay bail after a stint in jail.
The survivors of the riots continue to despair. They can’t even get cases registered against culprits if they happen to be policemen. The Special Investigation Team, formed soon after the riots, closed more cases than it reopened. They have to approach the High Court for registering first information reports or demanding Central Bureau of Investigation inquiries. They have no choice but to reopen old wounds.
meena.menon@thehindu.co.in
July 11, 2009
Will those reponsible for Babri Mosque demolition and the following riots be brought to book?
Indian Express
11 July, 2009
Murder he wrote
by Jyoti Punwani
Ibrahim Rahimtulla has a direct interest in the findings of the Justice M.S. Liberhan Commission. This cattle-shed owner’s home was burnt on the night of January 10, 1993, by people he identified as his neighbours, by name and as Shiv Sainiks, before the Srikrishna Commission, and again in court where they are being tried. The trial began only last year, and is still not over. Ibrahim is now close to 50. He and his neighbours continue to live in uneasy peace in the same area, and though 16 years have passed, he has not forgotten that night when he and his wife sustained burns in the attack.
The lives of thousands of Mumbaikars changed in the weeks following December 6, 1992. 900 people died; 2036 were injured (Srikrishna Commission Report) in those dark, hate-filled days and nights. Their families have moved on. Those whose only sons died have got their daughters married off; but feel in a myriad ways, the lack of a young man in the house. Children whose fathers were killed have grown quickly into adulthood, keenly aware of their mothers’ sudden transformation into breadwinners. Some have managed to make it to college, struggling every year to pay the fees, ashamed to ask for help.
Then there are those like Ganesh Mahajan, who remembers a happy childhood spent among Muslims. Hiding in their home, he saw outsiders looting his own after smashing the idols of the ancestral temple where his father was the pujari. This was the morning after the Babri Masjid demolition. The trauma proved too much for the 15-year-old; the family left their downtown home for a Hindu-dominated suburb 50 kms away. The daily commute aged his parents prematurely. But Ganesh was fortunate; other kids had to drop out of schools in Mumbai and move back to their villages in UP after their homes were destroyed in the riots.
Ganesh has often wondered whether it was necessary for the Babri Masjid to be demolished; couldn’t the politicians have built the Ram temple next to it? Similar thoughts besiege those who line the benches in court as accused in the 92-93 riot cases that are still going on. Attending court for the last 16 years, they’ve seen magistrates come and go, policemen fail to turn up, their own lawyers seek repeated adjournments. Witnesses have died, migrated to their own community havens, or relocated as part of the redevelopment mania that has hit the city. Some refuse to lose a day’s wages to travel to court to testify against their assailants, who exercise clout in their area even 16 years later. Some of these accused were dragged from their homes and mosques, charged with crimes they never committed by policemen later indicted for murder by a judicial commission of inquiry. But 16 years later, they remain accused.
Then there are those accused, now greying, who cringe at the memory of those days when, swayed by the frenzied slogans of their leaders, they had poured into the streets and turned against their neighbours. Their actions propelled these leaders to power, but when it came to finding lawyers, paying their fees and convincing employers to let them take leave repeatedly for court appearances, the leaders turned inaccessible.
For all these Mumbaikars, the 17 years that Justice M.S. Liberhan has taken to submit his findings don’t seem very long. December 6, 1992 might have been just yesterday, for their lives still bear the scars inflicted then. The demolition of the Babri Masjid shaped their lives; and though they know who was responsible for it, they need official confirmation from a judge who has sifted through reams of evidence. Exactly which politicians had a role to play; whose was the greater culpability — these have remained issues only of polemics and vote-grabbing. They see that no leader has suffered the way they have in the last 17 years. Instead, all went on to greater political heights, using them as stepping stones.
So when a judge pronounces his verdict on whose acts of omission and commission brought down the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, Mumbaikars want to hear it, even if it is 17 years later.
The writer is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist
11 July, 2009
Murder he wrote
by Jyoti Punwani
Ibrahim Rahimtulla has a direct interest in the findings of the Justice M.S. Liberhan Commission. This cattle-shed owner’s home was burnt on the night of January 10, 1993, by people he identified as his neighbours, by name and as Shiv Sainiks, before the Srikrishna Commission, and again in court where they are being tried. The trial began only last year, and is still not over. Ibrahim is now close to 50. He and his neighbours continue to live in uneasy peace in the same area, and though 16 years have passed, he has not forgotten that night when he and his wife sustained burns in the attack.
The lives of thousands of Mumbaikars changed in the weeks following December 6, 1992. 900 people died; 2036 were injured (Srikrishna Commission Report) in those dark, hate-filled days and nights. Their families have moved on. Those whose only sons died have got their daughters married off; but feel in a myriad ways, the lack of a young man in the house. Children whose fathers were killed have grown quickly into adulthood, keenly aware of their mothers’ sudden transformation into breadwinners. Some have managed to make it to college, struggling every year to pay the fees, ashamed to ask for help.
Then there are those like Ganesh Mahajan, who remembers a happy childhood spent among Muslims. Hiding in their home, he saw outsiders looting his own after smashing the idols of the ancestral temple where his father was the pujari. This was the morning after the Babri Masjid demolition. The trauma proved too much for the 15-year-old; the family left their downtown home for a Hindu-dominated suburb 50 kms away. The daily commute aged his parents prematurely. But Ganesh was fortunate; other kids had to drop out of schools in Mumbai and move back to their villages in UP after their homes were destroyed in the riots.
Ganesh has often wondered whether it was necessary for the Babri Masjid to be demolished; couldn’t the politicians have built the Ram temple next to it? Similar thoughts besiege those who line the benches in court as accused in the 92-93 riot cases that are still going on. Attending court for the last 16 years, they’ve seen magistrates come and go, policemen fail to turn up, their own lawyers seek repeated adjournments. Witnesses have died, migrated to their own community havens, or relocated as part of the redevelopment mania that has hit the city. Some refuse to lose a day’s wages to travel to court to testify against their assailants, who exercise clout in their area even 16 years later. Some of these accused were dragged from their homes and mosques, charged with crimes they never committed by policemen later indicted for murder by a judicial commission of inquiry. But 16 years later, they remain accused.
Then there are those accused, now greying, who cringe at the memory of those days when, swayed by the frenzied slogans of their leaders, they had poured into the streets and turned against their neighbours. Their actions propelled these leaders to power, but when it came to finding lawyers, paying their fees and convincing employers to let them take leave repeatedly for court appearances, the leaders turned inaccessible.
For all these Mumbaikars, the 17 years that Justice M.S. Liberhan has taken to submit his findings don’t seem very long. December 6, 1992 might have been just yesterday, for their lives still bear the scars inflicted then. The demolition of the Babri Masjid shaped their lives; and though they know who was responsible for it, they need official confirmation from a judge who has sifted through reams of evidence. Exactly which politicians had a role to play; whose was the greater culpability — these have remained issues only of polemics and vote-grabbing. They see that no leader has suffered the way they have in the last 17 years. Instead, all went on to greater political heights, using them as stepping stones.
So when a judge pronounces his verdict on whose acts of omission and commission brought down the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, Mumbaikars want to hear it, even if it is 17 years later.
The writer is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist
July 03, 2009
Liberhan report is bad news for BJP - But will any action be taken?
The Hindu, 1 July 2009
Regardless of contents, Liberhan report is bad news for BJP news analysis
by Siddharth Varadarajan
But Congress may shrink from taking firm action
New Delhi: Sixteen years on from the Sangh parivar’s single biggest act of infamy, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its leaders are likely to discover there is no political statute of limitations for the crimes of conspiracy, incitement, rioting and vandalism that were committed in the name of Hindutva when the Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.
Having prospered politically for more than a decade from the resulting polarisation, the BJP’s ‘rath’ eventually ran out of steam in 2004.
Catalyst
The catalyst was perhaps the Gujarat killings of 2002 or the neoliberal economic policies to which the illiberal politics of Hindutva were wedded. But today, after its second consecutive defeat in a general election, the BJP finds itself increasingly aware of the liability that communalism has become.
Officially, the party claims the demolition was the result of spontaneous action by the mob which it had mobilised in Ayodhya that fateful day. BJP leader L.K. Advani, whose alleged role in the conspiracy is the subject of a CBI prosecution, famously described the event as the “saddest day” of his life. But the fact is that he and his colleagues had hitched their political fortunes to the violence and intolerance that was the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. And today, they have to accept political responsibility for the consequences of that movement, even if the Indian judicial system eventually proves incapable of assigning criminal liability.
This is where the report of the Liberhan Commission delivers the cruellest blow: at a time when the BJP is looking for ways to repackage itself as an inclusive party, its role in the destruction of the 16th century monument is a reminder of its intolerant agenda. “The subject matter of the report is 90 per cent about BJP,” a senior Congress leader told The Hindu. He acknowledged that the report might also criticise the role of Narasimha Rao, who was Prime Minister at the time, and his Congress-run Central government for its inaction. “But the entire episode is one which is of, for and by the BJP.”
Second, the manner in which the report names and assigns guilt is likely to accentuate the already acute internal fissures within the party. Indeed, Liberhan may become an ‘internal brahmastra’ for Mr. Advani regardless of the role the report says he played in the demolition. Worse, by bringing Ayodhya back into the news, the report will also encourage those within the Sangh parivar who feel the Ram temple issue should remain at the core of their political agenda.
Instead of jettisoning the Hindutva agenda, a remedy that some inside the party now say the 2009 election results indicate, the BJP might then find itself thrust into an even tighter embrace with sectarianism.
For the Congress, the party is likely to want to use the report’s recommendations to weaken the BJP and its leadership politically without allowing them to claim the mantle of martyrdom. But after 17 years, those citizens who still feel aggrieved at the criminal destruction of the mosque are also entitled to expect that justice will be done and that all politicians involved in the crime are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
However, the track record of the Congress does not encourage optimism. Most of the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry into the 1992-93 Bombay riots, for example, remain unimplemented a decade after that report was submitted. And the more fundamental reforms that are needed to protect the citizenry from official acts of omission and commission during riots are not even on the Manmohan Singh government’s radar screen.
Regardless of contents, Liberhan report is bad news for BJP news analysis
by Siddharth Varadarajan
But Congress may shrink from taking firm action
New Delhi: Sixteen years on from the Sangh parivar’s single biggest act of infamy, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its leaders are likely to discover there is no political statute of limitations for the crimes of conspiracy, incitement, rioting and vandalism that were committed in the name of Hindutva when the Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.
Having prospered politically for more than a decade from the resulting polarisation, the BJP’s ‘rath’ eventually ran out of steam in 2004.
Catalyst
The catalyst was perhaps the Gujarat killings of 2002 or the neoliberal economic policies to which the illiberal politics of Hindutva were wedded. But today, after its second consecutive defeat in a general election, the BJP finds itself increasingly aware of the liability that communalism has become.
Officially, the party claims the demolition was the result of spontaneous action by the mob which it had mobilised in Ayodhya that fateful day. BJP leader L.K. Advani, whose alleged role in the conspiracy is the subject of a CBI prosecution, famously described the event as the “saddest day” of his life. But the fact is that he and his colleagues had hitched their political fortunes to the violence and intolerance that was the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. And today, they have to accept political responsibility for the consequences of that movement, even if the Indian judicial system eventually proves incapable of assigning criminal liability.
This is where the report of the Liberhan Commission delivers the cruellest blow: at a time when the BJP is looking for ways to repackage itself as an inclusive party, its role in the destruction of the 16th century monument is a reminder of its intolerant agenda. “The subject matter of the report is 90 per cent about BJP,” a senior Congress leader told The Hindu. He acknowledged that the report might also criticise the role of Narasimha Rao, who was Prime Minister at the time, and his Congress-run Central government for its inaction. “But the entire episode is one which is of, for and by the BJP.”
Second, the manner in which the report names and assigns guilt is likely to accentuate the already acute internal fissures within the party. Indeed, Liberhan may become an ‘internal brahmastra’ for Mr. Advani regardless of the role the report says he played in the demolition. Worse, by bringing Ayodhya back into the news, the report will also encourage those within the Sangh parivar who feel the Ram temple issue should remain at the core of their political agenda.
Instead of jettisoning the Hindutva agenda, a remedy that some inside the party now say the 2009 election results indicate, the BJP might then find itself thrust into an even tighter embrace with sectarianism.
For the Congress, the party is likely to want to use the report’s recommendations to weaken the BJP and its leadership politically without allowing them to claim the mantle of martyrdom. But after 17 years, those citizens who still feel aggrieved at the criminal destruction of the mosque are also entitled to expect that justice will be done and that all politicians involved in the crime are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
However, the track record of the Congress does not encourage optimism. Most of the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry into the 1992-93 Bombay riots, for example, remain unimplemented a decade after that report was submitted. And the more fundamental reforms that are needed to protect the citizenry from official acts of omission and commission during riots are not even on the Manmohan Singh government’s radar screen.
October 25, 2007
Muslims demand justice for 1992-93 Mumbai carnage
India e-news 25 Oct 2007
From correspondents in Maharashtra, India, 12:00 AM IST
Over 10,000 Muslims representing 35 organisations came together Thursday to demand full implementation of the recommendations of an inquiry report on the communal violence here in 1992-93 following the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission, appointed by the Maharashtra government, had conducted a statutory inquiry into the communal carnage that engulfed the country's commercial capital in December 1992-January 1993, following the demolition of the mosque in Ayodhya on Dec 6, 1992.
Abu Asim Azmi, a Rajya Sabha MP and the Maharashtra unit president of the Samajwadi Party, along with over 40 senior Muslim clerics addressed the Justice Rally in the Azad Maidan, south Mumbai.
Azmi said their quest for justice would not end till 'the Commission report is 100 percent implemented'.
Giving a deadline of Dec 5 to the Democratic Front government in the state, he warned that from Dec 6, the 15th anniversary of the Babri Masjid razing, Muslims would court arrest at all police stations in Mumbai.
Azmi pointed out that the long-winded trial in the March 12, 1993 bomb explosions here - after the mosque demolition and the subsequent carnage - had already been completed and the judgement too had been pronounced.
'However, the state government has not yet initiated action against those persons indicted by the Commission who continue to roam free,' Azmi said.
He demanded immediate arrest and legal proceedings against 31 police officials including former Mumbai police commissioner R.D. Tyagi, former Shiv Sena MP from Mumbai North-West constituency Madhukar Sarpotdar and others.
Azmi exhorted Muslims to 'throw out' the state government if their demands were not met by Dec 5.
Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court, responding to the government's appeal, last Tuesday set up four special courts to conduct fast trial of the cases pertaining to the communal violence.
An announcement to this effect was also made by Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh in Aurangabad Thursday.
The judges appointed by the high court are: P.N. Deshmukh, M.L. Tahiliani, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and R.C. Bapat.
The police had made elaborate security arrangements for the rally which took place even as the state cabinet was away for two days in Aurangabad.
Over 1,000 uniformed personnel drawn from the local police, the Rapid Action Force, the Riots Police and others stood guard along with surveillance through closed circuit TV cameras - an unprecedented measure for a rally.
The organizations which took part included the Ulema Council, Jamiat-ul-Ulema, Jamat-e-Islami, Ulema Associations, Majlis-e-Shoura, and Mumbai Aman Committee.
From correspondents in Maharashtra, India, 12:00 AM IST
Over 10,000 Muslims representing 35 organisations came together Thursday to demand full implementation of the recommendations of an inquiry report on the communal violence here in 1992-93 following the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission, appointed by the Maharashtra government, had conducted a statutory inquiry into the communal carnage that engulfed the country's commercial capital in December 1992-January 1993, following the demolition of the mosque in Ayodhya on Dec 6, 1992.
Abu Asim Azmi, a Rajya Sabha MP and the Maharashtra unit president of the Samajwadi Party, along with over 40 senior Muslim clerics addressed the Justice Rally in the Azad Maidan, south Mumbai.
Azmi said their quest for justice would not end till 'the Commission report is 100 percent implemented'.
Giving a deadline of Dec 5 to the Democratic Front government in the state, he warned that from Dec 6, the 15th anniversary of the Babri Masjid razing, Muslims would court arrest at all police stations in Mumbai.
Azmi pointed out that the long-winded trial in the March 12, 1993 bomb explosions here - after the mosque demolition and the subsequent carnage - had already been completed and the judgement too had been pronounced.
'However, the state government has not yet initiated action against those persons indicted by the Commission who continue to roam free,' Azmi said.
He demanded immediate arrest and legal proceedings against 31 police officials including former Mumbai police commissioner R.D. Tyagi, former Shiv Sena MP from Mumbai North-West constituency Madhukar Sarpotdar and others.
Azmi exhorted Muslims to 'throw out' the state government if their demands were not met by Dec 5.
Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court, responding to the government's appeal, last Tuesday set up four special courts to conduct fast trial of the cases pertaining to the communal violence.
An announcement to this effect was also made by Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh in Aurangabad Thursday.
The judges appointed by the high court are: P.N. Deshmukh, M.L. Tahiliani, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and R.C. Bapat.
The police had made elaborate security arrangements for the rally which took place even as the state cabinet was away for two days in Aurangabad.
Over 1,000 uniformed personnel drawn from the local police, the Rapid Action Force, the Riots Police and others stood guard along with surveillance through closed circuit TV cameras - an unprecedented measure for a rally.
The organizations which took part included the Ulema Council, Jamiat-ul-Ulema, Jamat-e-Islami, Ulema Associations, Majlis-e-Shoura, and Mumbai Aman Committee.
September 18, 2007
A Tale of Two Reports: Institutionalisation of Communal Biases
A Tale of Two Reports: Institutionalisation of Communal Biases
by Ram Puniyani
In the wake of the punishments being mated out to the culprits of Mumbai blasts of 1993, the logical demand of punishing the guilty of 92-93 Mumbai carnage came up from different sections of society. Many a delegations met the political leadership to urge for implementation of Shrikrishna Commission report. This report impeccably pointed out the role of different leaders, from Shiv Sena-BJP and even some from Congress in the Mumbai riots. Their crimes of commission and omission are there for all to see in this report. The present government, Congress-NCP, had come to power on the promise that they will implement the report. Despite long years of being in power; they cleverly sat pretty, giving some flimsy answers about the actions which they seem to have taken. One sampler will do, for the crime which calls for few years of imprisonment, they transferred some one from one to the other department, bravo! Now with the revival of the pressure from the victims and concerned citizens, again some white wash is being peddled out with the promise to take action.
At the same time, those involved in the riots threatened against the implementation of this report. Same political formations had earlier rejected the report as being anti Hindu, and challenging that if the report is implemented, it will be the political death of those who will do so. An argument is being rehashed as to why should the wounds of the riots be reopened, unmindful of the fact that wounds of the victims may heal only and only if the culprits are given the punishment. A subtle threat has been given that its implementation will bring in more violence. It’s clear that those who are the victims try to call for justice and those who are the patrons of criminals or criminals themselves peddle these arguments to avoid their own punishment and to protect their political interests.
The second report which is under attack is the one related to the socio-economic condition of the Muslim minority. This report, like the previous report on the same issue, Gopal Singh Commission, pointed out the abysmal condition of the Muslims, their low levels of incomes, social deprivation, economic destitution, their being side tracked from the jobs, welfare schemes and other ladders for progress. As the present UPA government is trying to take this seriously, is accepting the idea of forming of Equal Opportunities Commission in principle, some political elements have termed this affirmative action of the government being like throwing ‘an Atom bomb at Hindu community’. It is warning that it will take to the streets to oppose this ‘appeasement of Muslims’.
There are lots of parallels in the attitude to both the reports. As such these two reports genuinely reflect the twin aspects of the problem of the minorities, the socio-economic aspects and the physical security. Both have a strong impact on each other and also on the existence of the community as a whole. One infers from Sachar committee report that as a community, Muslims are the only one’s whose economic and social situation has slumped down in last sixty years. And Shrikrishna report delineates the anatomy of a riot, the expression of depth to which communalism has sunk in our society. It demonstrates as to how one type of political leadership, the one like BJP-Shiv Sena instigates and launches the attack, getting its legitimization in advance from the propaganda that the minorities are a threat, are attacking, so we have to retaliate to protect ‘ourselves’.
The other type of leadership sits back and lets these elements do their communal polarization, and also does accommodate some elements from these parties for the sake of power. Congress which claims to be secular easily slips when principled actions are to be taken. During the Mumbai pogrom Congress Chief Minister Sudhakarrao naik was sitting pretty paralyzed by inaction and silently supporting the attack led by Bal Thackeray. When a delegation of industrialists led by Tata called upon him to stop the mayhem, he told them to meet Thackeray to request him whatever they want. The same party later admitted into its fold the likes of Narayan Rane and Sanjay Nirupam, who were loyal sainiks of Thackeray. The third player in the game, the state machinery, the police and bureaucracy and partly judiciary is infected by the institutional biases against the minorities and aids and abets the anti minority carnage in different ways, that’s how you see so many of police officers blundering and participating in the violence and getting a pat from their political masters.
Sachar Committee shows that condition of Muslims is worsening. No democracy worth its pluralism and equality can ignore a chunk of its society and ignore the affirmative action for weaker sections of society. Here it seems so far the democratic values have been put on hold as far as weaker sections are concerned. Here one type of leadership, the right wing is dead opposed to any affirmative action, equating it to nuclear attack on the Hindus. The other leadership, which so far slept over the issue, is hopefully trying to wake up to it. The third major player the bureaucracy is by now too communalized to be bothered to let the affirmative action take place. The tragedy is that on one hand there is no effective affirmative action for minorities and on the other even the token talk on this issue is presented as a threat to Hindu community.
Can we let this denigration of minorities go on? One recalls that our earlier caste system had totally marginalized the low castes. Today in the communal scenario another chunk of population is being relegated to secondary position. Are we creating new type of exclusionary social system? Sprawling ghettoes like Mumbra, Bhendi Bazar on one hand their absence in the social sphere on the other, totally violates the spirit of national community.
Golwalkar, the second supremo of RSS, the most important ideologue of RSS-BJP and affiliated organizations which are leading the anti minority tirade, wrote “…non Hindu people in Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture…they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizens rights.”. One may add to that they will also be subjected to differential legal system! Are we heading towards this terrifying vision of the patron saint of RSS-BJP?
(Writer is Secretary of All India Secular Forum)
by Ram Puniyani
In the wake of the punishments being mated out to the culprits of Mumbai blasts of 1993, the logical demand of punishing the guilty of 92-93 Mumbai carnage came up from different sections of society. Many a delegations met the political leadership to urge for implementation of Shrikrishna Commission report. This report impeccably pointed out the role of different leaders, from Shiv Sena-BJP and even some from Congress in the Mumbai riots. Their crimes of commission and omission are there for all to see in this report. The present government, Congress-NCP, had come to power on the promise that they will implement the report. Despite long years of being in power; they cleverly sat pretty, giving some flimsy answers about the actions which they seem to have taken. One sampler will do, for the crime which calls for few years of imprisonment, they transferred some one from one to the other department, bravo! Now with the revival of the pressure from the victims and concerned citizens, again some white wash is being peddled out with the promise to take action.
At the same time, those involved in the riots threatened against the implementation of this report. Same political formations had earlier rejected the report as being anti Hindu, and challenging that if the report is implemented, it will be the political death of those who will do so. An argument is being rehashed as to why should the wounds of the riots be reopened, unmindful of the fact that wounds of the victims may heal only and only if the culprits are given the punishment. A subtle threat has been given that its implementation will bring in more violence. It’s clear that those who are the victims try to call for justice and those who are the patrons of criminals or criminals themselves peddle these arguments to avoid their own punishment and to protect their political interests.
The second report which is under attack is the one related to the socio-economic condition of the Muslim minority. This report, like the previous report on the same issue, Gopal Singh Commission, pointed out the abysmal condition of the Muslims, their low levels of incomes, social deprivation, economic destitution, their being side tracked from the jobs, welfare schemes and other ladders for progress. As the present UPA government is trying to take this seriously, is accepting the idea of forming of Equal Opportunities Commission in principle, some political elements have termed this affirmative action of the government being like throwing ‘an Atom bomb at Hindu community’. It is warning that it will take to the streets to oppose this ‘appeasement of Muslims’.
There are lots of parallels in the attitude to both the reports. As such these two reports genuinely reflect the twin aspects of the problem of the minorities, the socio-economic aspects and the physical security. Both have a strong impact on each other and also on the existence of the community as a whole. One infers from Sachar committee report that as a community, Muslims are the only one’s whose economic and social situation has slumped down in last sixty years. And Shrikrishna report delineates the anatomy of a riot, the expression of depth to which communalism has sunk in our society. It demonstrates as to how one type of political leadership, the one like BJP-Shiv Sena instigates and launches the attack, getting its legitimization in advance from the propaganda that the minorities are a threat, are attacking, so we have to retaliate to protect ‘ourselves’.
The other type of leadership sits back and lets these elements do their communal polarization, and also does accommodate some elements from these parties for the sake of power. Congress which claims to be secular easily slips when principled actions are to be taken. During the Mumbai pogrom Congress Chief Minister Sudhakarrao naik was sitting pretty paralyzed by inaction and silently supporting the attack led by Bal Thackeray. When a delegation of industrialists led by Tata called upon him to stop the mayhem, he told them to meet Thackeray to request him whatever they want. The same party later admitted into its fold the likes of Narayan Rane and Sanjay Nirupam, who were loyal sainiks of Thackeray. The third player in the game, the state machinery, the police and bureaucracy and partly judiciary is infected by the institutional biases against the minorities and aids and abets the anti minority carnage in different ways, that’s how you see so many of police officers blundering and participating in the violence and getting a pat from their political masters.
Sachar Committee shows that condition of Muslims is worsening. No democracy worth its pluralism and equality can ignore a chunk of its society and ignore the affirmative action for weaker sections of society. Here it seems so far the democratic values have been put on hold as far as weaker sections are concerned. Here one type of leadership, the right wing is dead opposed to any affirmative action, equating it to nuclear attack on the Hindus. The other leadership, which so far slept over the issue, is hopefully trying to wake up to it. The third major player the bureaucracy is by now too communalized to be bothered to let the affirmative action take place. The tragedy is that on one hand there is no effective affirmative action for minorities and on the other even the token talk on this issue is presented as a threat to Hindu community.
Can we let this denigration of minorities go on? One recalls that our earlier caste system had totally marginalized the low castes. Today in the communal scenario another chunk of population is being relegated to secondary position. Are we creating new type of exclusionary social system? Sprawling ghettoes like Mumbra, Bhendi Bazar on one hand their absence in the social sphere on the other, totally violates the spirit of national community.
Golwalkar, the second supremo of RSS, the most important ideologue of RSS-BJP and affiliated organizations which are leading the anti minority tirade, wrote “…non Hindu people in Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture…they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizens rights.”. One may add to that they will also be subjected to differential legal system! Are we heading towards this terrifying vision of the patron saint of RSS-BJP?
(Writer is Secretary of All India Secular Forum)
September 09, 2007
Anger at minorities commission hearing
Sep 06, 2007
Anger at minorities commission hearing
Special Correspondent
MUMBAI: Anger and frustration boiled over during the public hearing of the National Commission for Minorities on Wednesday, as the Muslim community voiced its anguish at the “betrayal” by the Congress government and the lack of political will to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report on the Mumbai riots of 1992-93.
People expressed their feelings of aggrievement and insecurity 14 years after the communal carnage in Mumbai. The hearing in the afternoon at the State government guest house took a noisy turn when people’s representatives tried to speak and articulate issues concerning the community.
Arif Naseem Khan, Congress MLA, bore the brunt of the anger and his speech was shouted down with cries of “down with the Maharashtra government.”
Various individuals and NGOs said there was no need for an MLA to speak here and they had no faith in the elected representatives or the government. The proceedings were disrupted for a while as everyone protested against the Congress-NCP government which they said had done little to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report or punish the guilty.
Next in the line of fire was Maharashtra Minister of State for Labour Baba Siddiqui, who tried to calm down the angry gathering. He too had to stop speaking. Finally, the Commission said that only NGOs or individuals were required to speak. Some calm was restored after Dr. Zoya Hasan, member of the Commission, suggested that women speak for a while.
Absence of justice
The National Commission for Minorities headed by former Union Minister Mohammed Shafi Qureshi was hearing public representatives and NGOs on various issues concerning the minorities. It will meet the Maharashtra Chief Minister on Thursday. Though important issues such as education, lack of jobs and overall discrimination were raised, the most vital point was the complete lack of justice after the riots.
Speaker after speaker said the government, despite an election promise way back in 1999, failed to keep its word. Farid Batatawala, who has been campaigning for riot victims for 14 years, said that in the two major incidents during the riots — Suleiman Usman Bakery and Hari Masjid incidents — the government must punish the guilty policemen. Habib Fakir, educationist, said the government lacked the political will to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report.
Victims’ woes
The Commission also heard depositions from the riot victims. Tariq Wagle narrated how his son Shahnawaz, who was 16 in 1993, was shot dead by the police in front of him. Till now, the policemen involved had not been punished, Mr. Wagle said. He had named all the people involved, but they had been promoted, he said.
Farooq Mapkar, who was injured in the Hari Masjid firing, said that he was a victim but the police had charged him with murder. Till today, no case had been filed against the policemen but he was facing trial.
Nirbhay Bano Andolan and several other groups demanded the dismissal of policemen involved in the Mumbai riots. Hasina Sheikh from Awaz-e-Niswan, said that people did not come forward and register complaints as they feared the police. The government must open the over 1300 cases which had been closed, she said.
Dr. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Professor of Islamic studies, said that, “as an Indian, it is a big shame that I have to come here and ask for justice when the Indian Constitution does not discriminate.”
Women also complained about the way the police harassed their sons and husbands. Khatoon Sheikh from the group Hukook-e-Niswan, said that there was a lot of fear and the government must ensure their security.
NGOs also made the point that ensuring justice was not the responsibility of Muslims alone. The entire society must participate in demanding it. Saumya Uma from Women’s Research and Action Group said that when the State government decided to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report, the Shiv Sena said it would cause problems. Why did the State not act against the Sena’s threats and punish politicians inciting the people, she asked.
There was also scepticism about the outcome of the hearing. This is the fifth National Commission for Minorities and this is the first time it is visiting various places and assessing the problems for itself. It has already submitted a detailed report on internal displacement after the Gujarat riots.
A member clarified that it was not an executive body, but it could add its voice to the voices of the people.
Anger at minorities commission hearing
Special Correspondent
MUMBAI: Anger and frustration boiled over during the public hearing of the National Commission for Minorities on Wednesday, as the Muslim community voiced its anguish at the “betrayal” by the Congress government and the lack of political will to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report on the Mumbai riots of 1992-93.
People expressed their feelings of aggrievement and insecurity 14 years after the communal carnage in Mumbai. The hearing in the afternoon at the State government guest house took a noisy turn when people’s representatives tried to speak and articulate issues concerning the community.
Arif Naseem Khan, Congress MLA, bore the brunt of the anger and his speech was shouted down with cries of “down with the Maharashtra government.”
Various individuals and NGOs said there was no need for an MLA to speak here and they had no faith in the elected representatives or the government. The proceedings were disrupted for a while as everyone protested against the Congress-NCP government which they said had done little to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report or punish the guilty.
Next in the line of fire was Maharashtra Minister of State for Labour Baba Siddiqui, who tried to calm down the angry gathering. He too had to stop speaking. Finally, the Commission said that only NGOs or individuals were required to speak. Some calm was restored after Dr. Zoya Hasan, member of the Commission, suggested that women speak for a while.
Absence of justice
The National Commission for Minorities headed by former Union Minister Mohammed Shafi Qureshi was hearing public representatives and NGOs on various issues concerning the minorities. It will meet the Maharashtra Chief Minister on Thursday. Though important issues such as education, lack of jobs and overall discrimination were raised, the most vital point was the complete lack of justice after the riots.
Speaker after speaker said the government, despite an election promise way back in 1999, failed to keep its word. Farid Batatawala, who has been campaigning for riot victims for 14 years, said that in the two major incidents during the riots — Suleiman Usman Bakery and Hari Masjid incidents — the government must punish the guilty policemen. Habib Fakir, educationist, said the government lacked the political will to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report.
Victims’ woes
The Commission also heard depositions from the riot victims. Tariq Wagle narrated how his son Shahnawaz, who was 16 in 1993, was shot dead by the police in front of him. Till now, the policemen involved had not been punished, Mr. Wagle said. He had named all the people involved, but they had been promoted, he said.
Farooq Mapkar, who was injured in the Hari Masjid firing, said that he was a victim but the police had charged him with murder. Till today, no case had been filed against the policemen but he was facing trial.
Nirbhay Bano Andolan and several other groups demanded the dismissal of policemen involved in the Mumbai riots. Hasina Sheikh from Awaz-e-Niswan, said that people did not come forward and register complaints as they feared the police. The government must open the over 1300 cases which had been closed, she said.
Dr. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Professor of Islamic studies, said that, “as an Indian, it is a big shame that I have to come here and ask for justice when the Indian Constitution does not discriminate.”
Women also complained about the way the police harassed their sons and husbands. Khatoon Sheikh from the group Hukook-e-Niswan, said that there was a lot of fear and the government must ensure their security.
NGOs also made the point that ensuring justice was not the responsibility of Muslims alone. The entire society must participate in demanding it. Saumya Uma from Women’s Research and Action Group said that when the State government decided to implement the Srikrishna Commission’s report, the Shiv Sena said it would cause problems. Why did the State not act against the Sena’s threats and punish politicians inciting the people, she asked.
There was also scepticism about the outcome of the hearing. This is the fifth National Commission for Minorities and this is the first time it is visiting various places and assessing the problems for itself. It has already submitted a detailed report on internal displacement after the Gujarat riots.
A member clarified that it was not an executive body, but it could add its voice to the voices of the people.
September 06, 2007
Shrikrishna report: Anger, bitterness greet minorities panel
[A report on the National Commission for Minorities' public hearing in Mumbai, followed by some brief depostions]
Indian Express, 6 September 2007
Anger, bitterness greet minorities panel
Chairperson says emotions justified, will tell CM about riots report implementation today
Kavitha Iyer & Jinal Shah
Mumbai, September 05: Anger, resentment and memories of the financial capital’s worst ever communal riots, not dulled in the least by the 14 years that have passed since 1992-1993, were the order of the day when the National Commission for Minorities held a public hearing seeking to hear the voices of various minority groups in the state.
Though people had traveled from Beed and Raigad to demand better education and opportunity for the community, when the depositions of the Muslim community began at 2.30 pm, the focus immediately shifted to the communal riots and the non-implementation of the Justice Srikrishna Commission Report.
The bitterness at the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government’s inaction on ensuring justice for the riot victims was obvious: When Kurla MLA Arif Naseem Khan, a petitioner in a Supreme Court case on the riots, came up to depose, he was shouted down by dozens of activists and riot victims raising slogans against the government. After a loud and noisy disruption that lasted nearly 20 minutes with national commission and state commission members trying to bring the gathering to order, the depositions continued.
Mumbai resident Salim Khan Qazi set the tone at the start: “Three and a half years have passed since this government came to power. With only a year and a half to go for elections, is this an effort to appease the Muslims again?”
Farid Batatawala, an activist associated with the Jogeshwari Muslim Front and the Bombay Aman Committee, continued: The government is saying it will take action, but there are just two cases progressing in the courts-the Hari Masjid police firing case and that of the incident at Suleiman Usman Bakery. The minorities commission should demand action from the government on taking action against the policemen indicted by the Srikrishna Commission Report.”
Chairperson of the minorities commission Mohammed Shafi Qureshi said the anger and emotion were justified. Speaking to Newsline after the depositions, Qureshi said the implementation of the Srikrishna Commission Report would be among the issues to be discussed with Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh and Deputy Chief Minister R R Patil on Thursday.
“We must have the patience to listen to their grievances. We will certainly carry these sentiments to the right people,” he said. “When people are allowed to express their thoughts freely, they are emboldened to speak the truth. And that is what we wanted.”
Activists working with riot victims, religious leaders and those who lost family members, property and livelihood spoke emotionally about their loss of faith. “After eight years in power, this state government is now promising to implement the Srikrishna Commission report, which was submitted in 1998. A special court will be appointed to tackle these cases, the government is saying,” said Haseena Khan, a activist with Aawaz-e-Niswan. “But how many people have gone to police and the courts? Thousands died, but not even ten cases are currently in the courts.”
Earlier, other minorities spoke about their individual problems from getting scheduled caste certificates after conversion to Buddhism, to the lack of cemeteries for Dalits, atrocities faced by Christians while going to church, the Jain community’s demand for minority status and the demand for reservation quotas for Parsis.
‘If justice is not met, it is not only the concern of Muslims but a concern for all of us’
Indian Express, Mumbai Newsline
Thursday , September 06, 2007
Mumbai, September 05: Among the most strident voices at the hearing were those belonging to activists who have spent over a decade working for the victims of the communal riots of 1992-1993. Following are three articulate depositions from civil society:
Shakil Ahmed, Nirbhay Bano Aandolan
“But this meeting is for the people,” he shouted as soon as somebody suggested that seats in the packed auditorium be vacated for city legislators. Later, when MLA Arif Naseem Khan began his deposition, he led the sloganeering—victims of the communal riots of 1992-1993 had no faith left in the Congress-NCP government, said lawyer and activist Shakil Ahmed of the Nirbhay Bano Aandolan, which has been working with riot victims on matters related to government compensation, legal aid and rehabilitation.
Ahmed, also a petitioner in a Supreme Court case seeking action against the policemen indicted by Justice B N Srikrishna in his report, repeated his primary demands: “Action against the policemen who perpetrated injustice. There is tremendous lack of faith among people towards the police force—-setting that right means taking strong and immediate action against policemen who participated in violence against the minorities.”
Saumya Uma, Women’s Research and Action Group
“If justice is not met, it is not only the concern of Muslims but a concern for all of us,” said this activist. Uma spoke of the repeated threats continuing to appear in the media of another round of riots if the government decides to implement the Srikrishna Commission report. “If the state government, the state minorities commission and the national minorities commission stay silent despite these threats, it’s a shame,” she said. Also demanding that political leaders be prosecuted for their role in instigating the riots, she said the Muslim community has lost faith in justice. “Where is the political will to prosecute political leaders?” she asked.
Haseena Khan, Awaaz-E-Niswan
Fourteen years have passed since the Congress government set up a one-man commission to investigate the 1992-93 riots, this activist said. Haseena Khan of the Aawaz-E-Niswan spoke of the promise repeatedly made by the Congress in its election manifestos, to implement the Srikrishna Commission report. “After eight years in power, this state government is now promising to implement the Srikrishna Commission report, which was submitted in 1998. A special court will be appointed to tackle these cases, the government is saying,” she said. “But how many people have gone to police and the courts? Thousands died, but not even ten cases are currently in the courts.”
Khan said there are several victims whose complaints were never accepted by police stations only because they were against policemen, politicians or local party workers. “How is it possible that these cases will now be heard in court?” she asked. She also demanded that, like for the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the government should announce a Rs 5 lakh-compensation package.
Among those who deposed at the public hearing of the National Commission for Minorities were these three victims who still remember their loss, even 14 years later. Their voices:
Taher Wagle, lost his son in the riots
At 56, this frail man has made up his mind to spend Thursday camping at Azad Maidan, where various organizations and victims of the riots are to stage a demonstration seeking implementation of the Srikrishna Commission report. After all, on January 10, 1993, Taher Hasan Wagle’s 16-year-old son Shahnawaz was allegedly picked up by police during a combing operation from his Dockyard Road residence in a predominantly Muslim building. “At least 40 or 50 men were picked up after curfew orders were announced from buildings in the area and taken to waiting police vans,” Wagle told the panel in his deposition. “My son was shot at from point-blank range, the rifle butt jabbed into his back and then he was taken away. The next morning, he died.” Wagle’s daughter, now married and living in Muscat, was watching from the window. His demand: Suspend policemen indicted by the Srikrishna Commission, suspend the pension of those among them who have retired from the force. “Then they will know what it feels like to have the light stolen form your home.”
Noorjehan Aagar, sustained bullet injuries in the riots
It was a day after the riots had begun in December 1992 and Aagar was reading namaaz at her Behramnagar residence in Bandra (East) when the police barged into the house. “They started picking up young men,” the 50-year-old remembers.
“I shouted to gather other women who were all reading namaaz. All wailing and crying, we tried to convince the policemen that these men are innocent and had no role to play in the riots,” she said. “My son Aarif and brother-in-law Mehboob Sheikh were pulled out of the house. They loaded the van with young boys and many middle-aged men randomly. I begged the policemen to leave my son and brother-in-law, but to no avail.” In the melee, a policeman pulled out his rifle and two bullets entered Aagar’s right arm.
“I don’t know what justice the judiciary will give us but we have completely lost faith in the law enforcers. Today, I am too scared to approach the police about any crimes in my area.”
Farooq Mapkar, sustained bullet injuries, embroiled in a long legal battle
“Because I dared to be a witness against the atrocities of the law enforcers during the riots, the police is now charging me with murder,” said Farooq Mapkar (41), who was present in Wadala’s Hari Masjid when six men offering prayers were killed in police firing. While the police claimed they were firing to stop a frenzied mob, the Srikrishna Commission report stated that the police action had been entirely “unprovoked”. Mapkar has now moved Bombay High Court, demanding that an FIR be registered against Nikhil Kapse, then a police sub-inspector who allegedly led the firing. Kapse is among those policemen indicted in no unclear terms by the Srikrishna Commission.
Mapkar himself sustained a bullet injury in the Hari Masjid firing. Oddly, the police had pursued a rioting case against over 50 people including Mapkar, in which most accused were discharged last year. Mapkar’s trial was, however, separated and the police are now ready with their charges against him.
“I have spent 13 years awaiting justice, running from court to court. The policemen indicted by the report should be immediately acted against,” he said.
Indian Express, 6 September 2007
Anger, bitterness greet minorities panel
Chairperson says emotions justified, will tell CM about riots report implementation today
Kavitha Iyer & Jinal Shah
Mumbai, September 05: Anger, resentment and memories of the financial capital’s worst ever communal riots, not dulled in the least by the 14 years that have passed since 1992-1993, were the order of the day when the National Commission for Minorities held a public hearing seeking to hear the voices of various minority groups in the state.
Though people had traveled from Beed and Raigad to demand better education and opportunity for the community, when the depositions of the Muslim community began at 2.30 pm, the focus immediately shifted to the communal riots and the non-implementation of the Justice Srikrishna Commission Report.
The bitterness at the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government’s inaction on ensuring justice for the riot victims was obvious: When Kurla MLA Arif Naseem Khan, a petitioner in a Supreme Court case on the riots, came up to depose, he was shouted down by dozens of activists and riot victims raising slogans against the government. After a loud and noisy disruption that lasted nearly 20 minutes with national commission and state commission members trying to bring the gathering to order, the depositions continued.
Mumbai resident Salim Khan Qazi set the tone at the start: “Three and a half years have passed since this government came to power. With only a year and a half to go for elections, is this an effort to appease the Muslims again?”
Farid Batatawala, an activist associated with the Jogeshwari Muslim Front and the Bombay Aman Committee, continued: The government is saying it will take action, but there are just two cases progressing in the courts-the Hari Masjid police firing case and that of the incident at Suleiman Usman Bakery. The minorities commission should demand action from the government on taking action against the policemen indicted by the Srikrishna Commission Report.”
Chairperson of the minorities commission Mohammed Shafi Qureshi said the anger and emotion were justified. Speaking to Newsline after the depositions, Qureshi said the implementation of the Srikrishna Commission Report would be among the issues to be discussed with Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh and Deputy Chief Minister R R Patil on Thursday.
“We must have the patience to listen to their grievances. We will certainly carry these sentiments to the right people,” he said. “When people are allowed to express their thoughts freely, they are emboldened to speak the truth. And that is what we wanted.”
Activists working with riot victims, religious leaders and those who lost family members, property and livelihood spoke emotionally about their loss of faith. “After eight years in power, this state government is now promising to implement the Srikrishna Commission report, which was submitted in 1998. A special court will be appointed to tackle these cases, the government is saying,” said Haseena Khan, a activist with Aawaz-e-Niswan. “But how many people have gone to police and the courts? Thousands died, but not even ten cases are currently in the courts.”
Earlier, other minorities spoke about their individual problems from getting scheduled caste certificates after conversion to Buddhism, to the lack of cemeteries for Dalits, atrocities faced by Christians while going to church, the Jain community’s demand for minority status and the demand for reservation quotas for Parsis.
‘If justice is not met, it is not only the concern of Muslims but a concern for all of us’
Indian Express, Mumbai Newsline
Thursday , September 06, 2007
Mumbai, September 05: Among the most strident voices at the hearing were those belonging to activists who have spent over a decade working for the victims of the communal riots of 1992-1993. Following are three articulate depositions from civil society:
Shakil Ahmed, Nirbhay Bano Aandolan
“But this meeting is for the people,” he shouted as soon as somebody suggested that seats in the packed auditorium be vacated for city legislators. Later, when MLA Arif Naseem Khan began his deposition, he led the sloganeering—victims of the communal riots of 1992-1993 had no faith left in the Congress-NCP government, said lawyer and activist Shakil Ahmed of the Nirbhay Bano Aandolan, which has been working with riot victims on matters related to government compensation, legal aid and rehabilitation.
Ahmed, also a petitioner in a Supreme Court case seeking action against the policemen indicted by Justice B N Srikrishna in his report, repeated his primary demands: “Action against the policemen who perpetrated injustice. There is tremendous lack of faith among people towards the police force—-setting that right means taking strong and immediate action against policemen who participated in violence against the minorities.”
Saumya Uma, Women’s Research and Action Group
“If justice is not met, it is not only the concern of Muslims but a concern for all of us,” said this activist. Uma spoke of the repeated threats continuing to appear in the media of another round of riots if the government decides to implement the Srikrishna Commission report. “If the state government, the state minorities commission and the national minorities commission stay silent despite these threats, it’s a shame,” she said. Also demanding that political leaders be prosecuted for their role in instigating the riots, she said the Muslim community has lost faith in justice. “Where is the political will to prosecute political leaders?” she asked.
Haseena Khan, Awaaz-E-Niswan
Fourteen years have passed since the Congress government set up a one-man commission to investigate the 1992-93 riots, this activist said. Haseena Khan of the Aawaz-E-Niswan spoke of the promise repeatedly made by the Congress in its election manifestos, to implement the Srikrishna Commission report. “After eight years in power, this state government is now promising to implement the Srikrishna Commission report, which was submitted in 1998. A special court will be appointed to tackle these cases, the government is saying,” she said. “But how many people have gone to police and the courts? Thousands died, but not even ten cases are currently in the courts.”
Khan said there are several victims whose complaints were never accepted by police stations only because they were against policemen, politicians or local party workers. “How is it possible that these cases will now be heard in court?” she asked. She also demanded that, like for the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the government should announce a Rs 5 lakh-compensation package.
Among those who deposed at the public hearing of the National Commission for Minorities were these three victims who still remember their loss, even 14 years later. Their voices:
Taher Wagle, lost his son in the riots
At 56, this frail man has made up his mind to spend Thursday camping at Azad Maidan, where various organizations and victims of the riots are to stage a demonstration seeking implementation of the Srikrishna Commission report. After all, on January 10, 1993, Taher Hasan Wagle’s 16-year-old son Shahnawaz was allegedly picked up by police during a combing operation from his Dockyard Road residence in a predominantly Muslim building. “At least 40 or 50 men were picked up after curfew orders were announced from buildings in the area and taken to waiting police vans,” Wagle told the panel in his deposition. “My son was shot at from point-blank range, the rifle butt jabbed into his back and then he was taken away. The next morning, he died.” Wagle’s daughter, now married and living in Muscat, was watching from the window. His demand: Suspend policemen indicted by the Srikrishna Commission, suspend the pension of those among them who have retired from the force. “Then they will know what it feels like to have the light stolen form your home.”
Noorjehan Aagar, sustained bullet injuries in the riots
It was a day after the riots had begun in December 1992 and Aagar was reading namaaz at her Behramnagar residence in Bandra (East) when the police barged into the house. “They started picking up young men,” the 50-year-old remembers.
“I shouted to gather other women who were all reading namaaz. All wailing and crying, we tried to convince the policemen that these men are innocent and had no role to play in the riots,” she said. “My son Aarif and brother-in-law Mehboob Sheikh were pulled out of the house. They loaded the van with young boys and many middle-aged men randomly. I begged the policemen to leave my son and brother-in-law, but to no avail.” In the melee, a policeman pulled out his rifle and two bullets entered Aagar’s right arm.
“I don’t know what justice the judiciary will give us but we have completely lost faith in the law enforcers. Today, I am too scared to approach the police about any crimes in my area.”
Farooq Mapkar, sustained bullet injuries, embroiled in a long legal battle
“Because I dared to be a witness against the atrocities of the law enforcers during the riots, the police is now charging me with murder,” said Farooq Mapkar (41), who was present in Wadala’s Hari Masjid when six men offering prayers were killed in police firing. While the police claimed they were firing to stop a frenzied mob, the Srikrishna Commission report stated that the police action had been entirely “unprovoked”. Mapkar has now moved Bombay High Court, demanding that an FIR be registered against Nikhil Kapse, then a police sub-inspector who allegedly led the firing. Kapse is among those policemen indicted in no unclear terms by the Srikrishna Commission.
Mapkar himself sustained a bullet injury in the Hari Masjid firing. Oddly, the police had pursued a rioting case against over 50 people including Mapkar, in which most accused were discharged last year. Mapkar’s trial was, however, separated and the police are now ready with their charges against him.
“I have spent 13 years awaiting justice, running from court to court. The policemen indicted by the report should be immediately acted against,” he said.
September 03, 2007
Convention on Srikrishna Commission demands justice
(People's Democracy
September 02, 2007)
CONVENTION ON SRIKRISHNA COMMISSION REPORT DEMANDS JUSTICE NOW!
by NS Arjun
PROVIDING justice to victims of communal violence must be brought on to the agenda of the nation by political parties, civil society and all progressive forces. National institutions with constitutional mandate like National Commission of Minorities (NCM) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) must take up this issue as a challenge and avail all avenues of intervention to accomplish this task.
This was the message emanating from a convention held in New Delhi on August 25, 2007 to discuss the inaction against perpetrators of the riots in Mumbai in 1992/93 and the non-implementation of the Justice Srikrishna Commission recommendations. The meeting was jointly organised by SAHMAT and Communalism Combat and the speakers included Teesta Setalvad, Rajeev Dhavan, Zoya Hasan and Yusuf Muchala.
Should we not consider communal/hate crime also as terror? Can we ignore cause and just treat the effect? Is the government’s discretion in rejecting a commission of inquiry’s findings absolute? Or is it guided and controlled? Such questions were posed and discussed thoroughly during the four hour long meeting.
It may be noted the death penalties and other convictions awarded to the accused in the 1993 Bombay blasts case brought to the fore the issue of discriminatory justice. More than three times as many Mumbaikars were killed in the riots that had preceded the bomb blasts but the lack of action against the perpetrators of the riots, who have been named in the Srikrishna report, is clear evidence of the operation of a double standard of justice, one for the majority community and the other for the minorities. Successive state governments of Maharashtra, no matter what their political persuasion, have decided to shield the guilty. The motivations of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Shiv Sena parties in refusing to implement the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission are obvious: among the individuals named in the report are several of their leaders and cadres, including Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi, Gopinath Munde and Madhukar Sarpotdar.
What is more shocking is the role of the so-called secular parties. Though the manifestos of both the Congress Party and the Nationalist Congress Party in 1999 and 2004 promised to implement the recommendations of the report, these promises remain unfulfilled.
TERROR CAMPAIGN
In this background, the meeting organised by SAHMAT and Communalism Combat demanded immediate justice for the victims of Mumbai riots. Well known advocate of Mumbai High Court and one who has made tremendous contribution in documenting the victims’ plight before the Srikrishna Commission, Yusuf Muchala, made a passionate appeal for fighting the communal forces. Detailing the atmosphere of terror prevailing when he decided to take up the cases of victims before the commission, Muchala said that hordes of Shiv Sainiks would throng the court room and openly intimidate the relatives of victims. It was so difficult to find junior advocates to find vakalatnama as they were terrified of consequences. In fact, many tried to dissuade Muchala from going ahead with his work before the commission.
After seeing the terms of reference of the Srikrishna Commission, he felt that there could be intangible benefits of the commission in terms of pinpointing exactly what ails our system/society. He praised the commission for completing its work with total objectivity and impartiality as seen in its findings and recommendations. Despite its clear cut conclusion that the police have played a spectator role and facilitated the violence, the state government refuses to acknowledge the truth and facts. He criticised the Congress-NCP parties for doing nothing to implement the commission recommendations despite coming to power twice during this period. Muchala said that they were urging the Supreme Court to set aside the then Shiv Sena-BJP state government’s Action Taken Report on Srikrishna Commission.
Raising the issue of discretion of the governments in rejecting the commission of inquiries reports, Muchala said the civil society must take up this issue of making this discretion guided and controlled. He felt that there is institutionalised prejudice against Muslims as was seen during and after the riots. He referred to the gruesome killing of innocent, daily wage earners in Suleiman Usman Bakery during the riots by police officer R D Tyagi. Not one weapon was found from them nor were there any history sheets against them although they were labelled as terrorists. Muchala said even the Special Task Force (STF) concluded that it was a cold blooded murder and that the FIR filed by the police was concocted in order to cover up their crime. Despite this successive state governments took no action against the guilty policemen. Muchala called upon civil society to fight against such institutionalised prejudice against Muslims and to seek accountability from the government. He ended his speech by stressing the need for people to shed apathy and participate in the struggle to defeat the communal forces.
Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan began his speech by throwing up two propositions: one that Indian governance in general is displaying diminishing responsibility towards minorities and two that politically protected and sponsored violence is emerging as a distinct trend. He lamented that it has become the norm for governments to appoint commissions of inquiry, place a wishy washy ATR, debate it loosely and forget. He singled out Srikrishna Commission for going into the root of the issue. It meticulously documented how Shiv Sena orchestrated the violence and how communalised police personnel indulged in wanton killings. Dhavan said the killings by policemen were worst form of murder as they used official positions to commit these murders. He said despite the commission recommending action against 31 policemen, only 9 have been chargesheeted. The senior most among the chargesheeted, R D Tyagi, has been discharged. So the message to the policemen from government seems to be: Go and kill some Muslims. We will only hold your promotions for one year or cut an increment. He demanded strict action against the guilty policemen and cleansing of police force as recommended by Justice Srikrishna. Dhavan ended his speech by stating that Indian governance is not offering succour to its own secularism and its minorities.
INACTION OF THE JUDICIARY
Communalism Combat editor and well known anti-communal campaigner, Teesta Setalvad, said that the vehicle of criminal justice system is being used to target the victims. She said there is a frightening similarity with what happened in Mumbai during that period and what happened in Gujarat in 2002.
Terming the Mumbai High Court judgement condoning the incendiary writings in Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna, Setalvad said time has come to confront the inaction of judiciary relating to communalism and underlined that the bogey of contempt must also be risked for this sake. She wanted constitutional bodies like NCM and NHRC to take on the judiciary in this regard. She criticised the judiciary for picking and choosing the cases and called for bringing functioning of judiciary and its accessibility into focus. She raised the issue of Liberhans Commission formed to go into Babri Masjid demolition still not being accountable to its mandate despite change in government at the centre.
Setalvad ended her speech by making an impassioned plea for secular political parties to bring communal violence on to the centre stage of nation’s political discourse.
National Commission for Women member Zoya Hasan in her presentation stated that absence of justice is an indicator of our attitude to minorities. She cited lack of political will as one of the important reasons for this lack of justice. In this regard she compared the situation in Maharashtra and Gujarat to that of Left Front ruled West Bengal and even Bihar. She also felt that the complicity of political class, bureaucracy and police due to infiltration of communalism into State structure as another reason. Hasan felt that this immobilises institutions/structure. She called for increasing the presence of minorities in institutions in order to counter institutional communalism. Without confronting communal politics and communal discrimination, this issue of lack of justice cannot be addressed, she emphasised.
Artist Ram Rahman thanked the speakers and audience on behalf of SAHMAT for participating in the convention.
September 02, 2007)
CONVENTION ON SRIKRISHNA COMMISSION REPORT DEMANDS JUSTICE NOW!
by NS Arjun
PROVIDING justice to victims of communal violence must be brought on to the agenda of the nation by political parties, civil society and all progressive forces. National institutions with constitutional mandate like National Commission of Minorities (NCM) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) must take up this issue as a challenge and avail all avenues of intervention to accomplish this task.
This was the message emanating from a convention held in New Delhi on August 25, 2007 to discuss the inaction against perpetrators of the riots in Mumbai in 1992/93 and the non-implementation of the Justice Srikrishna Commission recommendations. The meeting was jointly organised by SAHMAT and Communalism Combat and the speakers included Teesta Setalvad, Rajeev Dhavan, Zoya Hasan and Yusuf Muchala.
Should we not consider communal/hate crime also as terror? Can we ignore cause and just treat the effect? Is the government’s discretion in rejecting a commission of inquiry’s findings absolute? Or is it guided and controlled? Such questions were posed and discussed thoroughly during the four hour long meeting.
It may be noted the death penalties and other convictions awarded to the accused in the 1993 Bombay blasts case brought to the fore the issue of discriminatory justice. More than three times as many Mumbaikars were killed in the riots that had preceded the bomb blasts but the lack of action against the perpetrators of the riots, who have been named in the Srikrishna report, is clear evidence of the operation of a double standard of justice, one for the majority community and the other for the minorities. Successive state governments of Maharashtra, no matter what their political persuasion, have decided to shield the guilty. The motivations of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Shiv Sena parties in refusing to implement the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission are obvious: among the individuals named in the report are several of their leaders and cadres, including Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi, Gopinath Munde and Madhukar Sarpotdar.
What is more shocking is the role of the so-called secular parties. Though the manifestos of both the Congress Party and the Nationalist Congress Party in 1999 and 2004 promised to implement the recommendations of the report, these promises remain unfulfilled.
TERROR CAMPAIGN
In this background, the meeting organised by SAHMAT and Communalism Combat demanded immediate justice for the victims of Mumbai riots. Well known advocate of Mumbai High Court and one who has made tremendous contribution in documenting the victims’ plight before the Srikrishna Commission, Yusuf Muchala, made a passionate appeal for fighting the communal forces. Detailing the atmosphere of terror prevailing when he decided to take up the cases of victims before the commission, Muchala said that hordes of Shiv Sainiks would throng the court room and openly intimidate the relatives of victims. It was so difficult to find junior advocates to find vakalatnama as they were terrified of consequences. In fact, many tried to dissuade Muchala from going ahead with his work before the commission.
After seeing the terms of reference of the Srikrishna Commission, he felt that there could be intangible benefits of the commission in terms of pinpointing exactly what ails our system/society. He praised the commission for completing its work with total objectivity and impartiality as seen in its findings and recommendations. Despite its clear cut conclusion that the police have played a spectator role and facilitated the violence, the state government refuses to acknowledge the truth and facts. He criticised the Congress-NCP parties for doing nothing to implement the commission recommendations despite coming to power twice during this period. Muchala said that they were urging the Supreme Court to set aside the then Shiv Sena-BJP state government’s Action Taken Report on Srikrishna Commission.
Raising the issue of discretion of the governments in rejecting the commission of inquiries reports, Muchala said the civil society must take up this issue of making this discretion guided and controlled. He felt that there is institutionalised prejudice against Muslims as was seen during and after the riots. He referred to the gruesome killing of innocent, daily wage earners in Suleiman Usman Bakery during the riots by police officer R D Tyagi. Not one weapon was found from them nor were there any history sheets against them although they were labelled as terrorists. Muchala said even the Special Task Force (STF) concluded that it was a cold blooded murder and that the FIR filed by the police was concocted in order to cover up their crime. Despite this successive state governments took no action against the guilty policemen. Muchala called upon civil society to fight against such institutionalised prejudice against Muslims and to seek accountability from the government. He ended his speech by stressing the need for people to shed apathy and participate in the struggle to defeat the communal forces.
Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan began his speech by throwing up two propositions: one that Indian governance in general is displaying diminishing responsibility towards minorities and two that politically protected and sponsored violence is emerging as a distinct trend. He lamented that it has become the norm for governments to appoint commissions of inquiry, place a wishy washy ATR, debate it loosely and forget. He singled out Srikrishna Commission for going into the root of the issue. It meticulously documented how Shiv Sena orchestrated the violence and how communalised police personnel indulged in wanton killings. Dhavan said the killings by policemen were worst form of murder as they used official positions to commit these murders. He said despite the commission recommending action against 31 policemen, only 9 have been chargesheeted. The senior most among the chargesheeted, R D Tyagi, has been discharged. So the message to the policemen from government seems to be: Go and kill some Muslims. We will only hold your promotions for one year or cut an increment. He demanded strict action against the guilty policemen and cleansing of police force as recommended by Justice Srikrishna. Dhavan ended his speech by stating that Indian governance is not offering succour to its own secularism and its minorities.
INACTION OF THE JUDICIARY
Communalism Combat editor and well known anti-communal campaigner, Teesta Setalvad, said that the vehicle of criminal justice system is being used to target the victims. She said there is a frightening similarity with what happened in Mumbai during that period and what happened in Gujarat in 2002.
Terming the Mumbai High Court judgement condoning the incendiary writings in Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna, Setalvad said time has come to confront the inaction of judiciary relating to communalism and underlined that the bogey of contempt must also be risked for this sake. She wanted constitutional bodies like NCM and NHRC to take on the judiciary in this regard. She criticised the judiciary for picking and choosing the cases and called for bringing functioning of judiciary and its accessibility into focus. She raised the issue of Liberhans Commission formed to go into Babri Masjid demolition still not being accountable to its mandate despite change in government at the centre.
Setalvad ended her speech by making an impassioned plea for secular political parties to bring communal violence on to the centre stage of nation’s political discourse.
National Commission for Women member Zoya Hasan in her presentation stated that absence of justice is an indicator of our attitude to minorities. She cited lack of political will as one of the important reasons for this lack of justice. In this regard she compared the situation in Maharashtra and Gujarat to that of Left Front ruled West Bengal and even Bihar. She also felt that the complicity of political class, bureaucracy and police due to infiltration of communalism into State structure as another reason. Hasan felt that this immobilises institutions/structure. She called for increasing the presence of minorities in institutions in order to counter institutional communalism. Without confronting communal politics and communal discrimination, this issue of lack of justice cannot be addressed, she emphasised.
Artist Ram Rahman thanked the speakers and audience on behalf of SAHMAT for participating in the convention.
August 29, 2007
The Maharashtra government is forced to take another look at the Srikrishna report
Frontline
Aug. 25-Sep. 07, 2007
COMMUNALISM
Wake-up call
by Lyla Bavadam and Anupama Katakam
The Maharashtra government is forced to take another look at the Srikrishna report following a Supreme Court directive.
V. GANESAN
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, who submitted his report in 1998.
ALMOST a decade has passed since the Srikrishna Commission filed its report on the Mumbai riots of 1992-93. The Commission’s recommendations were initially rejected. Some of them were later implemented, but grudgingly. The Maharashtra government has received much flak for ignoring the greater part of the recommendations.
It was only the persistence of several activist groups that helped the riot victims win some semblance of justice. The Action Committee for the Implementation of the Srikrishna Report, a group of human rights activists and Muslim groups, had petitioned the Supreme Court protesting against the Maharashtra government’s inaction on the recommendations. Responding to this, on August 1, the Supreme Court asked the petitioners to file an affidavit detailing the government’s lapses. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan gave the petitioners six weeks to furnish the number of cases filed, instances in which cases were not filed or the accused escaped punishment, and instances where public prosecutors did not act to bring a case to trial or prosecutors were not appointed.
The Chief Justice said: “If there is complete failure of justice it will be certainly looked into but it has also to be seen that it was only an inquiry report and the action has to be taken by the government. It is not possible for this court to go meticulously into each case but a general direction can be issued for taking action where there were gross lapses…”
In response, Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh said his government had decided to expedite the implementation of the report’s recommendations by creating special fast-track courts to hear the 36-plus pending cases. He said his government was also considering setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to reinvestigate key cases against politicians and police officials who had been indicted in the report.
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
Ever since it was tabled, it was clear that the Srikrishna report would be a hot potato that political parties would toss away. The Commission, headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a sitting Judge of the High Court of Bombay, was formed in 1993 to inquire into the cause of the riots that shook Mumbai for over two months from December 1992 to January 1993; it also had to identify the perpetrators. The Commission was formed during the time of the Congress regime in the State. But the Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party combine, which came to power in 1995, disbanded the Commission in 1996. Strong public opinion against the action ensured that it was reconstituted the same year, this time with its terms of reference extended to include the Mumbai bomb blasts of March 1993. In 1998, after five years of painstaking cross-examinations and arguments, Justice Srikrishna presented his report to the Shiv Sena-BJP government.
The report indicted the Shiv Sena, holding it responsible for the bloodshed in the city. It also indicted several politicians belonging to the BJP and police officers. Despite this (or perhaps because of it), no action was taken. In fact, the government rejected the report and called it pro-Muslim and politically motivated. Copies of it were unavailable to the public. To a great extent, the government exploited the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which states that an Inquiry is not a court of law and any report filed has the status of a recommendation only and is not binding on the government.
Ever since the report was filed, various groups have pushed for the implementation of its recommendations. Though the State had previously filed three Action Taken Reports (ATR) in response to the Commission’s report, none of them has been satisfactory. It has taken almost a decade of pressure from non-governmental groups for the State government to look at the report again.
The latest move to look into the recommendations is likely to be the most successful. The completion of the bomb blasts trial has given an unintentional impetus to the demand to reopen the Srikrishna report. There is a growing feeling that justice for the victims of the riots was ignored while justice for the victims of the blasts was pursued relentlessly. Since a greater percentage of riot victims were Muslims and the greater number of those convicted in the blasts case were also Muslims, it looks as if Muslims are being persecuted and denied justice. The Supreme Court’s order has come at a particularly tricky time for the Vilasrao Deshmukh government. The relations between the Congress and the Shiv Sena were most cordial because of the latter’s support for Pratibha Patil as the presidential candidate. At the State level, this new friendship could have important ramifications because the Sena-BJP ties have always been tenuous and both the Congress and Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), have been on the lookout for an alliance with the Sena. With the Assembly elections scheduled for 2008-09, this would have been the ideal time to break the Sena-BJP partnership.
For the Chief Minister, this is a litmus test. Raking up the Srikrishna Commission will certainly not help any move to inch closer to the Sena. And yet, the brownie points to be gained by implementing the report is tempting – the Muslim voters in the State could be won over and Deshmukh’s own standing would rise within the party at the national level. Either way, the Chief Minister has a tough choice. The question is how successfully he will juggle political aspirations and moral obligations. Though the Congress has been in power in the State since 1999, it has ignored the report. This, despite a promise in the election manifesto to implement the recommendations.
There is no doubt that the riots were politically motivated and hence aspects of the report that suited political purposes were picked for redress. There are numerous examples of this. Milind Vaidya, a Sena corporator in 1993, had been identified as a key player in the riots by witnesses. Vaidya went on to become the Mayor of Mumbai. But Sanjay Gawande, a policeman who had also been identified by witnesses as having assisted Vaidya in rioting, was dismissed from service after he was indicted in the Commission’s report. As a mere constable he was a disposable pawn, to show that the government was carrying out the report’s recommendations. Another example is that of Sena Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Madhukar Sarpotdar whose vehicle was stopped and searched during curfew hours then by an Army patrol. Unlicensed firearms and choppers were found in his vehicle. No action was taken against him.
Teesta Setalvad, rights activist and co-editor of Communalism Combat said: “Several cases of the most grievous crimes have resulted in acquittals. These acquittals have also been shrouded in secrecy and very often it is the Ma harashtra government’s own public prosecutors who advised the State government against appealing these cases.
This is true in the Madhukar Sarpotdar case and even in the R.D. Tyagi case.” Similar evidence was documented in the case of other Sena and BJP leaders such as Bal Thackeray, Ram Naik and Gopinath Munde, but no arrests were made. The excuse given at that time was that the arrest of a popular politician would fuel more riots. But even after the riots, they were not brought to book.
POLICE CULPABILITY
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the riots was the complicity of the police with rioters and political leaders who were instigating the communal attacks. The Commission has recorded hundreds of witness statements that give detailed descriptions of how the police aggressively participated in riots or stood mutely while Muslims were being killed.
The report had bluntly stated: “The evidence before the Commission indicates that the police personnel were found actively participating in riots, communal incidents or incidents of looting, arson and so on. The Commission strongly recommends that Government take strict action against them”. In spite of the Commission indicting 31 policemen, virtually no punishment has been meted out to them. In fact most of them continue to be in service. About five of them have even been promoted. Only one was dismissed. Several of them were exonerated.
Human rights groups and Muslim organisations have been demanding for some time now that the cases be re-examined and a fresh inquiry conducted. “Why should innocent riot victims have cases pending against them when policemen found guilty of murder, loot and torture go scot-free?” asks Shakeel Ahmed of the Nirbhay Bano Andolan, an organisation fighting for justice for the riot victims since 1993.
Activists and riot victims demand that the State set up SIT to reinvestigate the cases. It is crucial that this team be composed of members who have unimpeachable credentials, says a list of demands released by a group of organisations campaigning for the implementation of the report. They are also demanding the reopening of 1,300 “Summary A cases” (cases which are authentic but remain undetected).
Although the Chief Minister is unwilling to commit to the SIT demand, he has directed, under mounting pressure from the public, City Police Commissioner D.N. Jadhav to constitute a Mumbai Police Committee. The committee will look into the lapses in the action taken against police officials and politicians for their alleged role in the riots. Jadhav says once all claims are made, the committee will respond to them in a systematic and transparent manner. “Wherever any lapse is found, we will address it immediately. Once our action is complete, we will submit the report to the court,” he said. Jadhav has asked for three months to complete the task. Additionally, Jadhav says, he has set up a special cell that will report the exact position of the 894 cases for which the police had filed charge sheets. He said he would look into the question of reopening the Summary A cases.
S. YESHWANT
A woman outside the burnt remains of her house in Tulsiwadi in southwest Mumbai, one of the worst-hit areas, during the January 1993 riots.
Among the shameful tales of excesses committed by the police was the role of former Director-General of Police R.D. Tyagi. This case typifies the attitude of successive governments towards punishing the perpetrators of the riots. Tyagi, a Joint Commissioner of Police at that time, stormed into the Sulieman Usman Bakery on Mohammed Ali Road and shot nine Muslims in the back at point-blank range. During his trial, he defended himself by saying that he had information that Muslim rioters were hiding in the bakery. He and his team had decided to “flush out” these men. Witness accounts, however, say there were hardly any people in the bakery or around it as a curfew was on. Reportedly, there was enough evidence to incriminate Tyagi but he got off lightly. The State failed to appoint a senior prosecutor.
Tyagi’s case exemplifies the cosy police-politician relationship. He went on to become Commissioner of Mumbai Police in the Sena-BJP regime and retired as DGP. He then joined the Sena, and even fought (and lost) an election on the Sena ticket. Today he runs a successful security agency. In 2005, the State government said it would file an appeal in the Supreme Court to discharge the order on Tyagi’s case. Till date no appeal has been filed.
Another high-profile case is that of Nikhil Kapse, who is now an assistant inspector in the Economic Offences wing of the Mumbai Police. According to witness accounts, Kapse, a sub-inspector at the time of the riots, led policemen into the Hari Masjid on Mohammed Ali Road and fired upon a group of people doing namaz. Many were shot in the back. He later claimed they were shot outside the mosque. Kapse then took the men he had injured and some others to the police station and charge d them with rioting. The Commission categorically states: “Kapse is not only guilty of unjustified, unprovoked firing but also of inhuman and brutal behaviour during the incident.” Yet the government exonerated Kapse.
Farookh Mapkar, one of those who was shot at by Kapse and charged with causing tension, has spent the past 14 years trying to fight his case. Mapkar has repeatedly tried to file a First Information Report (FIR) on the Hari Masjid incident, but the police have blocked his efforts. The Bombay High Court is now hearing his case and many involved in the masjid incident are hoping Kapse will be brought to book by the higher court.
Despite the three ATRs, there is a prevailing feeling that justice has not been done. The ATRs have not addressed the main aspects of the report. There is also a distinct lack of transparency in the manner in which the State government dealt with the recommendations. For instance, it claims to have taken action against 46 policemen who were indicted but provides no details of their identity, their crime or punishment given. In an effort to widen the communal divide, subversive elements have tried to say that the 1992-93 riots and the 1993 bomb blasts were unrelated incidents, but it cannot be denied that the blasts were a reaction to the riots. Justice Srikrishna correctly wrote in his report: “One common link between the riots… and the bomb blasts appears to be that the former [seems] to have been a causative factor for the latter…”
Despite this, there has been a distinct difference in the manner in which the two have been handled. One reason for this is that the bomb blast cases were tried by a court of law while the riot cases were assigned to a Commission of Inquiry whose recommendations are not binding on the government. But even those riot cases that are being tried by a court of law have lagged behind shamefully.
The punishments awarded to those indicted in the bomb blast trial and those indicted by the Commission are poles apart in the matter of severity. In the recently concluded blasts trial, the Special Court gave 11 death sentences and 20 life sentences in a total of 138 cases. The seemingly mild involvement of keeping a bag of explosives won a 64-year-old woman five years of rigorous imprisonment. In comparison, here are statistics from the riots: 2,270 cases were registered during the riots. Charge sheets were filed in 650 cases. About 350 cases are still pending with the court. Justice would have been served to some extent if the Commission’s recommendations were implemented.
Approximately 900 people lost their lives in the riots, of which 575 were Muslims. The blasts claimed 257 lives. The intention here is not to compare the two. It is merely to add the statistic to the body of evidence that exists but is not being applied in the quest for justice.
Aug. 25-Sep. 07, 2007
COMMUNALISM
Wake-up call
by Lyla Bavadam and Anupama Katakam
The Maharashtra government is forced to take another look at the Srikrishna report following a Supreme Court directive.
V. GANESAN
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, who submitted his report in 1998.
ALMOST a decade has passed since the Srikrishna Commission filed its report on the Mumbai riots of 1992-93. The Commission’s recommendations were initially rejected. Some of them were later implemented, but grudgingly. The Maharashtra government has received much flak for ignoring the greater part of the recommendations.
It was only the persistence of several activist groups that helped the riot victims win some semblance of justice. The Action Committee for the Implementation of the Srikrishna Report, a group of human rights activists and Muslim groups, had petitioned the Supreme Court protesting against the Maharashtra government’s inaction on the recommendations. Responding to this, on August 1, the Supreme Court asked the petitioners to file an affidavit detailing the government’s lapses. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan gave the petitioners six weeks to furnish the number of cases filed, instances in which cases were not filed or the accused escaped punishment, and instances where public prosecutors did not act to bring a case to trial or prosecutors were not appointed.
The Chief Justice said: “If there is complete failure of justice it will be certainly looked into but it has also to be seen that it was only an inquiry report and the action has to be taken by the government. It is not possible for this court to go meticulously into each case but a general direction can be issued for taking action where there were gross lapses…”
In response, Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh said his government had decided to expedite the implementation of the report’s recommendations by creating special fast-track courts to hear the 36-plus pending cases. He said his government was also considering setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to reinvestigate key cases against politicians and police officials who had been indicted in the report.
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
Ever since it was tabled, it was clear that the Srikrishna report would be a hot potato that political parties would toss away. The Commission, headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a sitting Judge of the High Court of Bombay, was formed in 1993 to inquire into the cause of the riots that shook Mumbai for over two months from December 1992 to January 1993; it also had to identify the perpetrators. The Commission was formed during the time of the Congress regime in the State. But the Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party combine, which came to power in 1995, disbanded the Commission in 1996. Strong public opinion against the action ensured that it was reconstituted the same year, this time with its terms of reference extended to include the Mumbai bomb blasts of March 1993. In 1998, after five years of painstaking cross-examinations and arguments, Justice Srikrishna presented his report to the Shiv Sena-BJP government.
The report indicted the Shiv Sena, holding it responsible for the bloodshed in the city. It also indicted several politicians belonging to the BJP and police officers. Despite this (or perhaps because of it), no action was taken. In fact, the government rejected the report and called it pro-Muslim and politically motivated. Copies of it were unavailable to the public. To a great extent, the government exploited the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which states that an Inquiry is not a court of law and any report filed has the status of a recommendation only and is not binding on the government.
Ever since the report was filed, various groups have pushed for the implementation of its recommendations. Though the State had previously filed three Action Taken Reports (ATR) in response to the Commission’s report, none of them has been satisfactory. It has taken almost a decade of pressure from non-governmental groups for the State government to look at the report again.
The latest move to look into the recommendations is likely to be the most successful. The completion of the bomb blasts trial has given an unintentional impetus to the demand to reopen the Srikrishna report. There is a growing feeling that justice for the victims of the riots was ignored while justice for the victims of the blasts was pursued relentlessly. Since a greater percentage of riot victims were Muslims and the greater number of those convicted in the blasts case were also Muslims, it looks as if Muslims are being persecuted and denied justice. The Supreme Court’s order has come at a particularly tricky time for the Vilasrao Deshmukh government. The relations between the Congress and the Shiv Sena were most cordial because of the latter’s support for Pratibha Patil as the presidential candidate. At the State level, this new friendship could have important ramifications because the Sena-BJP ties have always been tenuous and both the Congress and Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), have been on the lookout for an alliance with the Sena. With the Assembly elections scheduled for 2008-09, this would have been the ideal time to break the Sena-BJP partnership.
For the Chief Minister, this is a litmus test. Raking up the Srikrishna Commission will certainly not help any move to inch closer to the Sena. And yet, the brownie points to be gained by implementing the report is tempting – the Muslim voters in the State could be won over and Deshmukh’s own standing would rise within the party at the national level. Either way, the Chief Minister has a tough choice. The question is how successfully he will juggle political aspirations and moral obligations. Though the Congress has been in power in the State since 1999, it has ignored the report. This, despite a promise in the election manifesto to implement the recommendations.
There is no doubt that the riots were politically motivated and hence aspects of the report that suited political purposes were picked for redress. There are numerous examples of this. Milind Vaidya, a Sena corporator in 1993, had been identified as a key player in the riots by witnesses. Vaidya went on to become the Mayor of Mumbai. But Sanjay Gawande, a policeman who had also been identified by witnesses as having assisted Vaidya in rioting, was dismissed from service after he was indicted in the Commission’s report. As a mere constable he was a disposable pawn, to show that the government was carrying out the report’s recommendations. Another example is that of Sena Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Madhukar Sarpotdar whose vehicle was stopped and searched during curfew hours then by an Army patrol. Unlicensed firearms and choppers were found in his vehicle. No action was taken against him.
Teesta Setalvad, rights activist and co-editor of Communalism Combat said: “Several cases of the most grievous crimes have resulted in acquittals. These acquittals have also been shrouded in secrecy and very often it is the Ma harashtra government’s own public prosecutors who advised the State government against appealing these cases.
This is true in the Madhukar Sarpotdar case and even in the R.D. Tyagi case.” Similar evidence was documented in the case of other Sena and BJP leaders such as Bal Thackeray, Ram Naik and Gopinath Munde, but no arrests were made. The excuse given at that time was that the arrest of a popular politician would fuel more riots. But even after the riots, they were not brought to book.
POLICE CULPABILITY
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the riots was the complicity of the police with rioters and political leaders who were instigating the communal attacks. The Commission has recorded hundreds of witness statements that give detailed descriptions of how the police aggressively participated in riots or stood mutely while Muslims were being killed.
The report had bluntly stated: “The evidence before the Commission indicates that the police personnel were found actively participating in riots, communal incidents or incidents of looting, arson and so on. The Commission strongly recommends that Government take strict action against them”. In spite of the Commission indicting 31 policemen, virtually no punishment has been meted out to them. In fact most of them continue to be in service. About five of them have even been promoted. Only one was dismissed. Several of them were exonerated.
Human rights groups and Muslim organisations have been demanding for some time now that the cases be re-examined and a fresh inquiry conducted. “Why should innocent riot victims have cases pending against them when policemen found guilty of murder, loot and torture go scot-free?” asks Shakeel Ahmed of the Nirbhay Bano Andolan, an organisation fighting for justice for the riot victims since 1993.
Activists and riot victims demand that the State set up SIT to reinvestigate the cases. It is crucial that this team be composed of members who have unimpeachable credentials, says a list of demands released by a group of organisations campaigning for the implementation of the report. They are also demanding the reopening of 1,300 “Summary A cases” (cases which are authentic but remain undetected).
Although the Chief Minister is unwilling to commit to the SIT demand, he has directed, under mounting pressure from the public, City Police Commissioner D.N. Jadhav to constitute a Mumbai Police Committee. The committee will look into the lapses in the action taken against police officials and politicians for their alleged role in the riots. Jadhav says once all claims are made, the committee will respond to them in a systematic and transparent manner. “Wherever any lapse is found, we will address it immediately. Once our action is complete, we will submit the report to the court,” he said. Jadhav has asked for three months to complete the task. Additionally, Jadhav says, he has set up a special cell that will report the exact position of the 894 cases for which the police had filed charge sheets. He said he would look into the question of reopening the Summary A cases.
S. YESHWANT
A woman outside the burnt remains of her house in Tulsiwadi in southwest Mumbai, one of the worst-hit areas, during the January 1993 riots.
Among the shameful tales of excesses committed by the police was the role of former Director-General of Police R.D. Tyagi. This case typifies the attitude of successive governments towards punishing the perpetrators of the riots. Tyagi, a Joint Commissioner of Police at that time, stormed into the Sulieman Usman Bakery on Mohammed Ali Road and shot nine Muslims in the back at point-blank range. During his trial, he defended himself by saying that he had information that Muslim rioters were hiding in the bakery. He and his team had decided to “flush out” these men. Witness accounts, however, say there were hardly any people in the bakery or around it as a curfew was on. Reportedly, there was enough evidence to incriminate Tyagi but he got off lightly. The State failed to appoint a senior prosecutor.
Tyagi’s case exemplifies the cosy police-politician relationship. He went on to become Commissioner of Mumbai Police in the Sena-BJP regime and retired as DGP. He then joined the Sena, and even fought (and lost) an election on the Sena ticket. Today he runs a successful security agency. In 2005, the State government said it would file an appeal in the Supreme Court to discharge the order on Tyagi’s case. Till date no appeal has been filed.
Another high-profile case is that of Nikhil Kapse, who is now an assistant inspector in the Economic Offences wing of the Mumbai Police. According to witness accounts, Kapse, a sub-inspector at the time of the riots, led policemen into the Hari Masjid on Mohammed Ali Road and fired upon a group of people doing namaz. Many were shot in the back. He later claimed they were shot outside the mosque. Kapse then took the men he had injured and some others to the police station and charge d them with rioting. The Commission categorically states: “Kapse is not only guilty of unjustified, unprovoked firing but also of inhuman and brutal behaviour during the incident.” Yet the government exonerated Kapse.
Farookh Mapkar, one of those who was shot at by Kapse and charged with causing tension, has spent the past 14 years trying to fight his case. Mapkar has repeatedly tried to file a First Information Report (FIR) on the Hari Masjid incident, but the police have blocked his efforts. The Bombay High Court is now hearing his case and many involved in the masjid incident are hoping Kapse will be brought to book by the higher court.
Despite the three ATRs, there is a prevailing feeling that justice has not been done. The ATRs have not addressed the main aspects of the report. There is also a distinct lack of transparency in the manner in which the State government dealt with the recommendations. For instance, it claims to have taken action against 46 policemen who were indicted but provides no details of their identity, their crime or punishment given. In an effort to widen the communal divide, subversive elements have tried to say that the 1992-93 riots and the 1993 bomb blasts were unrelated incidents, but it cannot be denied that the blasts were a reaction to the riots. Justice Srikrishna correctly wrote in his report: “One common link between the riots… and the bomb blasts appears to be that the former [seems] to have been a causative factor for the latter…”
Despite this, there has been a distinct difference in the manner in which the two have been handled. One reason for this is that the bomb blast cases were tried by a court of law while the riot cases were assigned to a Commission of Inquiry whose recommendations are not binding on the government. But even those riot cases that are being tried by a court of law have lagged behind shamefully.
The punishments awarded to those indicted in the bomb blast trial and those indicted by the Commission are poles apart in the matter of severity. In the recently concluded blasts trial, the Special Court gave 11 death sentences and 20 life sentences in a total of 138 cases. The seemingly mild involvement of keeping a bag of explosives won a 64-year-old woman five years of rigorous imprisonment. In comparison, here are statistics from the riots: 2,270 cases were registered during the riots. Charge sheets were filed in 650 cases. About 350 cases are still pending with the court. Justice would have been served to some extent if the Commission’s recommendations were implemented.
Approximately 900 people lost their lives in the riots, of which 575 were Muslims. The blasts claimed 257 lives. The intention here is not to compare the two. It is merely to add the statistic to the body of evidence that exists but is not being applied in the quest for justice.
Our tryst with secularism
(The Asian Age
August 29, 2007)
Our tryst with secularism
Between The Lines / Kuldip Nayar
One feels stumped when one finds that Muslim fundamentalists are taking a leaf out of the BJP book of hatred and hostility. Their number is small. But when they are able to issue fatwas (cheaper by the dozen these days) in favour of their wrong actions, they cause serious concern. The recent instance is that of the attack on Bangladeshi novelist Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad. Members of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) who came to her book launch attacked her. The organisers protected her at the risk of their own life. Then the MIM issued a fatwa in no time at all, as if it was ready beforehand.
The best of works are those that challenge religion and its holistic attitude. What the MIM members did — physically attacking Taslima — smacks of fascism. One need not agree with the author, but she must have her right to say what she wants to say. This is what differentiates a democratic set-up from a theocratic or dictatorial state. What the MIM members exhibited was deep-rooted religious prejudice. I hope this virus does not spread. Liberals from both communities need to work on such elements and check them.
Still, criticising any religion is not in order, because its followers feel hurt. But one cannot stop writers from exercising their freedom of expression. So I was sorry to watch on television Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and Uttar Pradesh Congress chief Salman Khurshid advocating that authors should avoid writing on religion. This amounts to defending the MIM. Both are top leaders. They should have joined issue with the fundamentalists.
Extremists among Hindus and Muslims have failed to realise that our tryst with destiny is to build a secular state. This is not dependent on whether Pakistan is Islamic or not. The goal of the freedom struggle was to build a secular state. And that was what Jawaharlal Nehru did. So I feel disappointed that even after 60 years of independence we have not sorted out the Hindu-Muslim question. I thought that, after independence, the pluralism which the British had meticulously destroyed would reassert itself. It is clear that this has not taken place. The nation must introspect to find out why.
One reason is that the guilty get away without any punishment. Leaders like L.K. Advani do not help when they say that the case against the rioters in Mumbai should not be reopened. If the accused in the Mumbai blasts could be tried and punished even after 15 years, why not those who killed scores of Muslims in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992? The Mumbai bomb blasts of 1993, as the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Inquiry Commission put it, were a "cause and effect" occurrence.
The Shiv Sena has threatened to organise a "Hindu backlash" if the government reopens the rioting cases. The then chief minister, Manohar Joshi has warned that communal amity in Maharashtra will be destroyed if the past is revived. But what does one do when out of 13,000 cases, only 800-odd are taken up? Obviously, the others were not pursued because of communal considerations. But if things are left as they are, the government will be seen coddling the communal elements.
The Sena’s hysterical outcry is an admission of guilt, because the Srikrishna Commission has held it guilty. The report, now nine years old, has said, "There is no doubt the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising (the) attack on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several bodies of the Shiv Sena." Justice Srikrishna has specifically mentioned Sena chief Bal Thackeray "who, like a veteran general, commanded the loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organising attacks against Muslims."
When the report was published, the Sena-BJP combine was ruling Maharashtra and Atal Behari Vajpayee was leading the BJP coalition at the Centre. Both governments rejected the report, with the Sena characterising it as "pro-Muslim." Today, the Congress rules Maharashtra as also the Centre. Both have been in power for three odd years. The question is, why didn’t they, in spite of knowing about BJP inaction, move against the politicians and police officials indicted in the report?
Even now, the action taken is cursory in nature because of the Sena’s threats. The Mumbai police has established a cell to re-examine the cases that have been closed. But when the police itself is involved, how can a fair probe be possible? By dragging their feet, the Maharashtra and the Central governments have proved that there is no rule of law, no Constitutional right of equal citizenship.
The guilty, whatever be their religion, have to be punished. However wayward India’s democratic system, there has to be justice. Instances like the non-implementation of the Srikrishna report give the impression that when it comes to taking action against Muslims, the government is firm, but when it has to act against Hindus, it is lax.
Unfortunately, this reading is confirmed when one sees that the recommendations made by various commissions since independence have seldom been implemented. Action is still awaited on the reports on riots at Jabalpur (1961), Ranchi (1967), Bhiwandi (1970), Jamshedpur (1979), Meerut (1982) and Bhagalpur (1989). These were major riots where the inquiry commissions said that politicians and police officials were involved. In these reports, Hindu extremists were found to be the instigators. The police were blamed in every riot for their connivance. Muslim fundamentalists, too, were involved in some cases. But politicians of both communities remained behind the scenes. None of them got any punishment. The action against the police and other officials was a simple departmental inquiry which ended with a warning, censure or demotion. Politicians and criminals have got so intertwined that when it comes to prosecution or punishment, it depends on political convenience, not legal advice. Invariably, those who get scot-free are Hindus.
Take Gujarat. It is a standing shame. No action has been taken against chief minister Narendra Modi keeping in mind the political considerations. Around 20,000 Muslims are still refugees, with no means of livelihood and with practically no future. Even the belated action being taken against those who are responsible for the massacre is not really moving forward. The government is doing its best to shield the politicians and officials who were party to the pogrom. This seems to have become a prestige issue for the BJP. Or is Gujarat a dress rehearsal for the party’s hidden agenda?
When organisations like the Shiv Sena, feeding on hatred, continue to pick on Muslims and when the MIM MLAs at Hyderabad are not willing to apologise, it is clear that the muck of religion has thickly coated our society. It cannot be cleaned easily. The minimum that the government can do is to see that the political parties do not append the name of religion to their outfits.
August 29, 2007)
Our tryst with secularism
Between The Lines / Kuldip Nayar
One feels stumped when one finds that Muslim fundamentalists are taking a leaf out of the BJP book of hatred and hostility. Their number is small. But when they are able to issue fatwas (cheaper by the dozen these days) in favour of their wrong actions, they cause serious concern. The recent instance is that of the attack on Bangladeshi novelist Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad. Members of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) who came to her book launch attacked her. The organisers protected her at the risk of their own life. Then the MIM issued a fatwa in no time at all, as if it was ready beforehand.
The best of works are those that challenge religion and its holistic attitude. What the MIM members did — physically attacking Taslima — smacks of fascism. One need not agree with the author, but she must have her right to say what she wants to say. This is what differentiates a democratic set-up from a theocratic or dictatorial state. What the MIM members exhibited was deep-rooted religious prejudice. I hope this virus does not spread. Liberals from both communities need to work on such elements and check them.
Still, criticising any religion is not in order, because its followers feel hurt. But one cannot stop writers from exercising their freedom of expression. So I was sorry to watch on television Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and Uttar Pradesh Congress chief Salman Khurshid advocating that authors should avoid writing on religion. This amounts to defending the MIM. Both are top leaders. They should have joined issue with the fundamentalists.
Extremists among Hindus and Muslims have failed to realise that our tryst with destiny is to build a secular state. This is not dependent on whether Pakistan is Islamic or not. The goal of the freedom struggle was to build a secular state. And that was what Jawaharlal Nehru did. So I feel disappointed that even after 60 years of independence we have not sorted out the Hindu-Muslim question. I thought that, after independence, the pluralism which the British had meticulously destroyed would reassert itself. It is clear that this has not taken place. The nation must introspect to find out why.
One reason is that the guilty get away without any punishment. Leaders like L.K. Advani do not help when they say that the case against the rioters in Mumbai should not be reopened. If the accused in the Mumbai blasts could be tried and punished even after 15 years, why not those who killed scores of Muslims in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992? The Mumbai bomb blasts of 1993, as the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Inquiry Commission put it, were a "cause and effect" occurrence.
The Shiv Sena has threatened to organise a "Hindu backlash" if the government reopens the rioting cases. The then chief minister, Manohar Joshi has warned that communal amity in Maharashtra will be destroyed if the past is revived. But what does one do when out of 13,000 cases, only 800-odd are taken up? Obviously, the others were not pursued because of communal considerations. But if things are left as they are, the government will be seen coddling the communal elements.
The Sena’s hysterical outcry is an admission of guilt, because the Srikrishna Commission has held it guilty. The report, now nine years old, has said, "There is no doubt the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising (the) attack on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several bodies of the Shiv Sena." Justice Srikrishna has specifically mentioned Sena chief Bal Thackeray "who, like a veteran general, commanded the loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organising attacks against Muslims."
When the report was published, the Sena-BJP combine was ruling Maharashtra and Atal Behari Vajpayee was leading the BJP coalition at the Centre. Both governments rejected the report, with the Sena characterising it as "pro-Muslim." Today, the Congress rules Maharashtra as also the Centre. Both have been in power for three odd years. The question is, why didn’t they, in spite of knowing about BJP inaction, move against the politicians and police officials indicted in the report?
Even now, the action taken is cursory in nature because of the Sena’s threats. The Mumbai police has established a cell to re-examine the cases that have been closed. But when the police itself is involved, how can a fair probe be possible? By dragging their feet, the Maharashtra and the Central governments have proved that there is no rule of law, no Constitutional right of equal citizenship.
The guilty, whatever be their religion, have to be punished. However wayward India’s democratic system, there has to be justice. Instances like the non-implementation of the Srikrishna report give the impression that when it comes to taking action against Muslims, the government is firm, but when it has to act against Hindus, it is lax.
Unfortunately, this reading is confirmed when one sees that the recommendations made by various commissions since independence have seldom been implemented. Action is still awaited on the reports on riots at Jabalpur (1961), Ranchi (1967), Bhiwandi (1970), Jamshedpur (1979), Meerut (1982) and Bhagalpur (1989). These were major riots where the inquiry commissions said that politicians and police officials were involved. In these reports, Hindu extremists were found to be the instigators. The police were blamed in every riot for their connivance. Muslim fundamentalists, too, were involved in some cases. But politicians of both communities remained behind the scenes. None of them got any punishment. The action against the police and other officials was a simple departmental inquiry which ended with a warning, censure or demotion. Politicians and criminals have got so intertwined that when it comes to prosecution or punishment, it depends on political convenience, not legal advice. Invariably, those who get scot-free are Hindus.
Take Gujarat. It is a standing shame. No action has been taken against chief minister Narendra Modi keeping in mind the political considerations. Around 20,000 Muslims are still refugees, with no means of livelihood and with practically no future. Even the belated action being taken against those who are responsible for the massacre is not really moving forward. The government is doing its best to shield the politicians and officials who were party to the pogrom. This seems to have become a prestige issue for the BJP. Or is Gujarat a dress rehearsal for the party’s hidden agenda?
When organisations like the Shiv Sena, feeding on hatred, continue to pick on Muslims and when the MIM MLAs at Hyderabad are not willing to apologise, it is clear that the muck of religion has thickly coated our society. It cannot be cleaned easily. The minimum that the government can do is to see that the political parties do not append the name of religion to their outfits.
August 26, 2007
Mumbai riots: Civil society body seeks immediate action
Mumbai riots: Civil society body seeks immediate action
Marya Shakil / CNN-IBN
August 26, 2007 at 14:54 in Nation section
TagsTags: Mumbai Riots, Srikrishna Commission
E-mail this report | Print this report
Immigrate to the USA
Win a US permanent residency (DV) with online professional support Seized Vehicle Auctions
Government Cars Sell Fast And Cheap North America, Europe, Australia
Ads by Google
New Delhi: Justice for the victims of the 92-93 Mumbai riots - the demand loud and clear at protest gathering after CNN-IBN showed the communal agenda of the Mumbai police during the riots.
Expressing shock, the members of civil society demanded punishment to the guilty and questioned the intentions of the Maharashtra government on taking actions on the Srikrishna Commission report.
Constitutional expert Rajeev Dhawan said, "The government has not done its homework. The RTI information clearly says very clearly all this is now in the possession of the present congress government. This is not an issue on which the state of Maharashtra can be defensive anymore."
Taking the example of the case of Farooq Mapkar one of the victims of a false case after the riots. This lawyer who has been fighting the battle for several like Farooq in Mumbai High Court for over 14 years now thought it was victimisation of the victims.
Lawyer Yusuf Muchhala said, "Instances show institutionalised prejudice against minorities."
Members of civil society asking for immediate action against those guilty as their belief in the institution called the police was shaken after CNN-IBN's report.
Report on Delhi convention on non implmentation of Sri Krishna Commission report on Bombay riots of 1993
(The Hindu
August 26, 2007)
Congress, NCP criticised
Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI: The Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party came in for criticism on Saturday for not implementing the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission Report on the 1993 Mumbai riots which had held the Shiv Sena and its top leadership responsible for orchestrating the attacks on the minority community.
Participating in a discussion here on the inaction against the perpetrators of the riots and non-implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, Yusuf Muchala, one of the lawyers who fought the case against all odds, accused the two parties ruling Maharashtra in coalition as “covertly communal.” At least, the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party were forthright in rejecting the report, he said at the discussion organised by the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust and Communalism Combat.
Civil society’s role
Given the manner in which the political class handles such issues, the recurrent message in most speeches was that civil society ought to remain eternally vigilant and united. While eminent lawyer and columnist Rajeev Dhawan accused Indian governance of generally displaying a diminishing accountability towards minorities, Mr. Muchala said civil society should remain vigilant and united to ensure that even the most dictatorial of forces succumb to the will of the people.
Both Mr. Dhawan and Mr. Muchala said it was not public interest but political consideration which was making the government drag its feet vis-À-vis implementation of the Srikrishna Commission Report. Critical of the manner in which governments in India since Independence have seen communal riots as a “blur,” Mr. Dhawan said this perception ought to be changed. “Governments in India should recognise riots as a conspiracy.”
Earlier, National Commission for Minorities member Zoya Hasan said India’s record in post-violence justice has been very unsatisfactory. Raising a number of questions, she pondered aloud why reports of Commissions of Enquiry are not binding on governments, and why relief and rehabilitation measures leave much to be desired. Also, she dwelt on the infiltration of communalism into state structures and public institutions as a result of which they can seldom take any action.
And, Teesta Setalvad of Communalism Combat urged civil society to take on the judiciary. Holding the judiciary responsible for the delays and flaws in the redress measures, she said the judiciary tends to escape a lot of the blame because people fear contempt of court.
As for action against the Shiv Sena for the 1993 riots, she sought to clarify that no one wanted the organisation to be banned. “All that we are asking is for prosecuting the Shiv Sena and its leaders who have been named in the report.”
August 26, 2007)
Congress, NCP criticised
Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI: The Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party came in for criticism on Saturday for not implementing the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission Report on the 1993 Mumbai riots which had held the Shiv Sena and its top leadership responsible for orchestrating the attacks on the minority community.
Participating in a discussion here on the inaction against the perpetrators of the riots and non-implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, Yusuf Muchala, one of the lawyers who fought the case against all odds, accused the two parties ruling Maharashtra in coalition as “covertly communal.” At least, the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party were forthright in rejecting the report, he said at the discussion organised by the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust and Communalism Combat.
Civil society’s role
Given the manner in which the political class handles such issues, the recurrent message in most speeches was that civil society ought to remain eternally vigilant and united. While eminent lawyer and columnist Rajeev Dhawan accused Indian governance of generally displaying a diminishing accountability towards minorities, Mr. Muchala said civil society should remain vigilant and united to ensure that even the most dictatorial of forces succumb to the will of the people.
Both Mr. Dhawan and Mr. Muchala said it was not public interest but political consideration which was making the government drag its feet vis-À-vis implementation of the Srikrishna Commission Report. Critical of the manner in which governments in India since Independence have seen communal riots as a “blur,” Mr. Dhawan said this perception ought to be changed. “Governments in India should recognise riots as a conspiracy.”
Earlier, National Commission for Minorities member Zoya Hasan said India’s record in post-violence justice has been very unsatisfactory. Raising a number of questions, she pondered aloud why reports of Commissions of Enquiry are not binding on governments, and why relief and rehabilitation measures leave much to be desired. Also, she dwelt on the infiltration of communalism into state structures and public institutions as a result of which they can seldom take any action.
And, Teesta Setalvad of Communalism Combat urged civil society to take on the judiciary. Holding the judiciary responsible for the delays and flaws in the redress measures, she said the judiciary tends to escape a lot of the blame because people fear contempt of court.
As for action against the Shiv Sena for the 1993 riots, she sought to clarify that no one wanted the organisation to be banned. “All that we are asking is for prosecuting the Shiv Sena and its leaders who have been named in the report.”
August 24, 2007
Mumbai riots a planned, perfected pogrom?
THE STENCH OF TRUTH
Special: Mumbai riots a planned, perfected pogrom?
Toral Varia / CNN-IBN
August 24, 2007 at 20:16 in Nation section
Mumbai: The popular belief is that the 1992-1993 riots in Mumbai were a spontaneous outpouring of anger at the demolition of Babri Masjid. That’s a myth—the riots were a pre-planned pogrom.
The seeds of the riots were sown during BJP leader L K Advani’s rathyatra in 1990. The build up to the Ramjanmabhoomi movement polarised the country along communal lines and the final provocation came when the Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.
As Hindutva leaders took out rallies through Muslim areas in Mumbai rioting broke out. Neighbour turned against neighbour and Mumbai came to a halt.
The rioting engulfed Mumbai in two waves: 6-12 December 1992 and 6-20 January 1993. Over 900 people (575 Muslims and 275 Hindus) were killed and more than 2,000 were injured.
The rioters wore khaki
The Mumbai Police failed to control the riots and some of its some policemen actually aided rioters. Transcripts of wireless messages between police officials clearly prove they were communal and encouraged their colleagues to conduct and allow attacks on Muslim properties and spare Hindus.
Here are just some of the messages policemen sent:
* “Landyala sodu noko! (Don't leave the Muslims);
* Dongriwarna landyala sodu nakos (don’t leave the Muslims in Dongri)
* Miyan la ka doodh vatatat aai jhavadya re saaley madarchod miyaan bohut bhen**** rehtey hai re! (Why hand out relief to the Muslims. They are such f******)
* Maharashtrainche jadu naka—miyanche jada sala bhen*****. (Don’t burn the properties of Maharashtrains. Burn the ones belonging to the Muslims.)
At one point even senior police officials were abused on the airwaves for trying to contain the riots. “Why are senior officers supporting the Muslims. Tell them the Muslims are f******,” said one police official.
The Justice B N Srikrishna commission, which investigated the riots, says in its report: “the wireless communication equipment were not foolproof. This enabled communally affected policemen to successfully break into and intrude upon the police channels and transmit abusives.”
RULE OF THE RIOTERS: A victim of the communal carnage in Mumbai lies dead on a road.
V N Deshmukh, who was Additional Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) in 1992-93, admits there were “disgruntled policemen” during the riots. "During that time there were some disgruntled policemen and they had a wireless set with them and they had gone into hiding somehwere and from there they were making wireless calls many times abusive," says Deshmukh.
The messages suggest that a communal police force disrupted Army relief operations and prevented supplies from reaching minority areas. The Srikrishna Commission was scathing in how poorly the army was used.
"There was utter confusion in effective utilization of army columns. Both in December 1992 and January 1993 the army could have been given an operational role which could have swiftly and decisively put an end to the communal riots," the report says.
Human rights activist Teesta Setalvad says policemen became rioters in Mumbai. “It was a clear infiltration of hate mongering entering into the wings of the state. Policemen became rioters--which had never happened before,” says Setalvad.
Copyright © IBNLive.com.
Special: Mumbai riots a planned, perfected pogrom?
Toral Varia / CNN-IBN
August 24, 2007 at 20:16 in Nation section
Mumbai: The popular belief is that the 1992-1993 riots in Mumbai were a spontaneous outpouring of anger at the demolition of Babri Masjid. That’s a myth—the riots were a pre-planned pogrom.
The seeds of the riots were sown during BJP leader L K Advani’s rathyatra in 1990. The build up to the Ramjanmabhoomi movement polarised the country along communal lines and the final provocation came when the Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.
As Hindutva leaders took out rallies through Muslim areas in Mumbai rioting broke out. Neighbour turned against neighbour and Mumbai came to a halt.
The rioting engulfed Mumbai in two waves: 6-12 December 1992 and 6-20 January 1993. Over 900 people (575 Muslims and 275 Hindus) were killed and more than 2,000 were injured.
The rioters wore khaki
The Mumbai Police failed to control the riots and some of its some policemen actually aided rioters. Transcripts of wireless messages between police officials clearly prove they were communal and encouraged their colleagues to conduct and allow attacks on Muslim properties and spare Hindus.
Here are just some of the messages policemen sent:
* “Landyala sodu noko! (Don't leave the Muslims);
* Dongriwarna landyala sodu nakos (don’t leave the Muslims in Dongri)
* Miyan la ka doodh vatatat aai jhavadya re saaley madarchod miyaan bohut bhen**** rehtey hai re! (Why hand out relief to the Muslims. They are such f******)
* Maharashtrainche jadu naka—miyanche jada sala bhen*****. (Don’t burn the properties of Maharashtrains. Burn the ones belonging to the Muslims.)
At one point even senior police officials were abused on the airwaves for trying to contain the riots. “Why are senior officers supporting the Muslims. Tell them the Muslims are f******,” said one police official.
The Justice B N Srikrishna commission, which investigated the riots, says in its report: “the wireless communication equipment were not foolproof. This enabled communally affected policemen to successfully break into and intrude upon the police channels and transmit abusives.”
RULE OF THE RIOTERS: A victim of the communal carnage in Mumbai lies dead on a road.
V N Deshmukh, who was Additional Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) in 1992-93, admits there were “disgruntled policemen” during the riots. "During that time there were some disgruntled policemen and they had a wireless set with them and they had gone into hiding somehwere and from there they were making wireless calls many times abusive," says Deshmukh.
The messages suggest that a communal police force disrupted Army relief operations and prevented supplies from reaching minority areas. The Srikrishna Commission was scathing in how poorly the army was used.
"There was utter confusion in effective utilization of army columns. Both in December 1992 and January 1993 the army could have been given an operational role which could have swiftly and decisively put an end to the communal riots," the report says.
Human rights activist Teesta Setalvad says policemen became rioters in Mumbai. “It was a clear infiltration of hate mongering entering into the wings of the state. Policemen became rioters--which had never happened before,” says Setalvad.
Copyright © IBNLive.com.
August 23, 2007
A Call for Equal Justice for Bombay 1993
SAHMAT / Communalism Combat - Saturday, 25th of August, 2007, 2pm – 6pm
JUSTICE NOW SRIKRISHNA COMMISSION REPORT BOMBAY RIOTS 1992-93
SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg
New Delhi-110001, India
Tel- 23711276/ 23351424
e-mail-sahmat@vsnl.com
22.8.2007
A Call for Equal Justice for Bombay 1993
SAHMAT and Communalism Combat invite you to attend a meeting to discuss the inaction against perpetrators of the riots in Bombay in 1992/93 and the non-implementation of the Justice Srikrishna Commission recommendations. Speakers include Teesta Setalvad, Rajeev Dhavan, Mahesh Bhatt, Zoya Hasan, Farooq Mapker, Yusuf Muchala and also victims from Bombay.
The death penalties and other convictions awarded to the accused in the 1993 Bombay blasts case are a punishment, a form of redress for the 250 families who lost dear ones in the serial blasts, and a message that the Indian system delivers justice for crimes, especially mass crimes of unspeakable brutality. But the bomb blasts of March 12, 1993 were only the external symptoms of a cancer that had gnawed away at Mumbai's vital organs with the abject failure of the state machinery to protect the city's Muslim population during the horrendous communal riots of December 1992 and January 1993. More than three times as many Mumbaikars were killed in the riots that had preceded the bomb blasts but the lack of action against the perpetrators of the riots, who are named in the Srikrishna report, is clear evidence of the operation of a double standard of justice, one for the majority community and the other for the minorities. India and its institutions of democracy, executive, judiciary and legislature, need to reflect.
The bomb terror of March 12, 1993 must be recalled with the same horror as the mob terror of December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives all over the country. The causes of the blasts, too, must be revived in public memory. As the Srikrishna report observed: "The serial bomb blasts were a reaction to the totality of events at Ayodhya and Bombay in December 1992 and January 1993… The common link between the riots and the blasts was that of cause and effect."
Information obtained under the Right to Information Act makes it clear that successive state governments, no matter what their political persuasion, have decided to shield the guilty. The motivations of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Shiv Sena parties in refusing to implement the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission are obvious:
among the individuals named in the report are several of their leaders and cadres, including Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi, Gopinath Munde and Madhukar Sarpotdar. What is more shocking is the role of the so-called secular parties.
Though the manifestos of both the Congress Party and the Nationalist Congress Party in 1999 and 2004 promised to implement the recommendations of the report, these promises remain unfulfilled.
Vivan Sundaram, Ram Rahman, M.K.Raina
Saturday, 25th of August, 2pm – 6pm
At Muktadhara Auditorium, Banga Sanskriti Bhawan, 18-19 Bhai Veer Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001 ( Near Gole Market)
JUSTICE NOW SRIKRISHNA COMMISSION REPORT BOMBAY RIOTS 1992-93
SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg
New Delhi-110001, India
Tel- 23711276/ 23351424
e-mail-sahmat@vsnl.com
22.8.2007
A Call for Equal Justice for Bombay 1993
SAHMAT and Communalism Combat invite you to attend a meeting to discuss the inaction against perpetrators of the riots in Bombay in 1992/93 and the non-implementation of the Justice Srikrishna Commission recommendations. Speakers include Teesta Setalvad, Rajeev Dhavan, Mahesh Bhatt, Zoya Hasan, Farooq Mapker, Yusuf Muchala and also victims from Bombay.
The death penalties and other convictions awarded to the accused in the 1993 Bombay blasts case are a punishment, a form of redress for the 250 families who lost dear ones in the serial blasts, and a message that the Indian system delivers justice for crimes, especially mass crimes of unspeakable brutality. But the bomb blasts of March 12, 1993 were only the external symptoms of a cancer that had gnawed away at Mumbai's vital organs with the abject failure of the state machinery to protect the city's Muslim population during the horrendous communal riots of December 1992 and January 1993. More than three times as many Mumbaikars were killed in the riots that had preceded the bomb blasts but the lack of action against the perpetrators of the riots, who are named in the Srikrishna report, is clear evidence of the operation of a double standard of justice, one for the majority community and the other for the minorities. India and its institutions of democracy, executive, judiciary and legislature, need to reflect.
The bomb terror of March 12, 1993 must be recalled with the same horror as the mob terror of December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives all over the country. The causes of the blasts, too, must be revived in public memory. As the Srikrishna report observed: "The serial bomb blasts were a reaction to the totality of events at Ayodhya and Bombay in December 1992 and January 1993… The common link between the riots and the blasts was that of cause and effect."
Information obtained under the Right to Information Act makes it clear that successive state governments, no matter what their political persuasion, have decided to shield the guilty. The motivations of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Shiv Sena parties in refusing to implement the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission are obvious:
among the individuals named in the report are several of their leaders and cadres, including Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi, Gopinath Munde and Madhukar Sarpotdar. What is more shocking is the role of the so-called secular parties.
Though the manifestos of both the Congress Party and the Nationalist Congress Party in 1999 and 2004 promised to implement the recommendations of the report, these promises remain unfulfilled.
Vivan Sundaram, Ram Rahman, M.K.Raina
Saturday, 25th of August, 2pm – 6pm
At Muktadhara Auditorium, Banga Sanskriti Bhawan, 18-19 Bhai Veer Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001 ( Near Gole Market)
August 22, 2007
Mumbai riots of 1992-93: Letting sleeping dogs lie
By Amulya Ganguli
The latest controversy over the virtual non-implementation of the B.N. Srikrishna Commission's report on the horrific Mumbai riots of 1992-93 has again exposed the cynicism of Indian political parties.
While the Congress-led government in Maharashtra is under pressure to reopen the riot cases, the Shiv Sena has reiterated the familiar rightwing view, which is shared by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that any such step will be counterproductive as it will exacerbate the existing communal Hindu-Muslim divide.
What is evident from these negative attitudes is that neither side - the 'secular' Congress or the 'communal' Shiv Sena - wants the culprits, whether they are the rioters or the conniving policemen, punished.
The Shiv Sena has been even more candid. It has expressed the fear that if the cases are reopened, it is the Hindus who will be hanged. Rarely before has a party pointed an accusing finger at itself in so open a manner. In doing so, the Sena has virtually admitted that its cadres were guilty of criminal acts during the outbreak and would have to pay the ultimate penalty if the investigations were started afresh.
The Sena's role has never been a secret, of course. The Commission had noted that 'there is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and the Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties ... The attacks on the Muslims by the Shiv Sainiks were mounted with military precision, with a list of establishments and voters' list in hand'.
Distressed by the fact that virtually no action has been taken against the guilty, Justice B.N. Srikrishna said recently that he spent 'five years of my life looking into the Mumbai riots, with government money, in the time when I could have disposed of at least 20,000 cases; so why let that go waste?'
It doesn't take much perspicacity to understand why successive governments of different political hues let the effort go waste.
One of the first acts of the Shiv Sena-BJP government, which assumed power in Maharashtra in 1995, was to disband the Commission altogether. It obviously couldn't allow an 'anti-Hindu' Commission - the Shiv Sena later described the report as 'anti-Hindu' - to conduct a probe which might lead to Hindus being hanged, as it has now said.
But, after the shortlived Atal Bihari Vajpayee government at the centre in 1996 revived the Commission, its ambit was widened to include the Mumbai serial blasts of 1993. The reason why the Vajpayee government reinstated the Commission was not out of any great regard for unearthing the truth, but to reach out to the secular parties in order to form a coalition. The BJP also put its pro-Hindu agenda relating to the temple, the uniform civil code and Article 370 on the backburner at the same time.
However, anyone who presumed that the Commission's revival, followed by the Shiv Sena-BJP's defeat in Maharashtra and the assumption of power by a Congress-led government, will lead to the speedy identification and punishment of the guilty can only be described as na�ve.
It may be necessary to remember that the Congress government of Sudhakar Naik of Maharashtra remained virtually inactive while the riots raged, forcing prominent citizens of Mumbai to approach the governor to intervene. It was this curious somnolence of the government that may have persuaded Sanjay Dutt to illegally acquire a weapon for his own defence since his mother, the late Nargis Dutt, was a Muslim.
It was also known at the time that the police were siding with the rioters in several areas. This shameful similarity between what happened in Mumbai in 1991-92 and during the Gujarat riots of 2002 is obvious. This is probably the reason why Congress president Sonia Gandhi now wants the Vilasrao Deshmukh government in Maharashtra to bestir itself lest she be required to answer accusations of Gujarat-style inaction when her party faces the electorate later this year in Gujarat.
Yet, it is very much clear that a Congress government too doesn't always like to be seen being pro-active in the matter of saving minority lives in case it loses the support of Hindus. This is precisely the reason why only perfunctory steps were taken against the guilty after the Commission's report was submitted, persuading Justice Srikrishna to demand that it should be made mandatory for a government to implement its recommendations, as in Australia and South Africa.
'Any judge taking up such an assignment', he has said, 'must do so on the promise that it (the report) is binding on the government.'
The Mumbai riots of December-January 1992-93 represent a tragic milestone of recent history as they were a direct fallout of the Babri mosque demolition by Hindu fanatics on Dec 6, 1992. As is known, the attack on the mosque was orchestrated by the BJP and other Hindutva outfits, like the Shiv Sena and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, as a part of their attempt to give a violently xenophobic turn to Indian politics so that they could reap an electoral reward.
A decade and a half later, while the BJP and its mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), remain as far from their goal of establishing a Hindu Rashtra (nation) as before, the official inquiries into their vandalism haven't been too successful either. While the report on the Mumbai riots remains unimplemented, the report of the Liberhan Commission on the Babri mosque demolition is yet to submitted.
If the mills of justice in India seem to grind with painful slowness, the reason is that it suits the political class to let the sleeping dogs lie.
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be reached at aganguli@mail.com)
August 19, 2007
Justice is no half-way house
(Frontline
Aug. 11-24, 2007
Justice is no half-way house
by Praful Bidwai
Convictions for the 1993 Mumbai bombings have deepened Muslim despondency about securing justice for the victims of the far worse riots that preceded them.
V. GANESAN
Justice B.N. Srikrishna. A 2004 picture.
JUDGE P.D. Kode of the Mumbai Special Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act has become a hero to large numbers of middle-class people. He appeared to represent a refreshing exception to their negative impression of the justice delivery system by virtue of his image of being bold, upright, impartial and, above all, tough in sentencing a hundred people for planning, causing and abetting the March 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts. But his judgment has polarised opini on as never before and created new insecurities among Muslims.
This polarisation poses a serious challenge to the entire Indian political system and the credibility of its pluralist-secular claims. This challenge must be faced squarely if the public’s faith in the possibility of securing justice for all citizens is to be restored. The task of mending and reinforcing India’s secular fabric, which has frayed over the past two decades or more, can no longer be postponed.
The polarising impact of Justice Kode’s verdict was magnified because of the unprecedented months-long period over which the sentencing process was spread, the dramatic suspense over Sanjay Dutt’s fate until July 31, and because of the judge’s personal remarks – “I’m only taking six years from your life”, which he hoped would be a hundred years long – which were considered by many to be out of order.
Another factor that amplified the effect was the coincidence of the trial’s last few days with the drama in Australia involving Mohammed Haneef, which exposed his unfair detention and the presumption of his “guilt by association”, and finally his release and return to India. This highlighted the commonness of the discrimination Muslims face in different countries.
A lot of questions are likely to be raised about the pardon Justice Kode granted two crucial witnesses, Badshah Khan and Murad Shah (both pseudonyms), whose testimony was central to the conviction of the more than 30 accused persons, including 11 of the 12 bombers sentenced to death.
Khan was part of the bomb blast conspiracy and a member of the Tiger Memon gang. By his own account, he was recruited to execute the plot and was involved in all three parts of the conspiracy: arms training in Pakistan (in mid-February 1993), smuggling of arms and explosive material into India, and loading and deploying vehicles carrying the bombs. Dutt was convicted on a far lesser charge but sentenced to six years, while Khan was let off. Similarly, all those connected with Yakub Memon were given harsh sentences.
Justice Kode acquitted Khan and Shah under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the courts to pardon anyone who makes “a full and true disclosure of all the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offences…”. It is not clear why the same criterion was not applied to some of the others.
As for Yakub Memon, several reports suggest that the Central Bureau of Investigation tricked him and his family (barring Tiger) into returning to India by assuring them that if they were truly innocent (as they believed they were), their rights would be protected in a fair trial in democratic India and they would be exonerated (for a vivid account of Yakub’s story, see “Will someone shed a tear for Yakub Memon?” by Maseeh Rahman in T he Sunday Express, August 5). Yakub was sentenced to death – not for directly planting bombs or killing anyone but for organising the money to buy the vehicles used in the blasts.
None of this speaks highly of the trial or, more broadly, of India’s justice delivery system. But what rankles even more is the failure of the government to bring to book the culprits of the December 1992-January 1993 communal riots in Mumbai following the razing of the Babri Masjid. About 900 people were killed in these – more than three times the number who perished in the March 12 bombings. Nearly two-thirds of those killed were Muslims. They became targets of a most pernicious form of collusion between communal Shiv Sena and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders and the Congress-led government, in particular its police.
As Justice B.N. Srikrishna, who inquired into the violence, concluded, there was a “cause-and-effect” relationship between the riots and the bomb blasts that followed. After a painstaking inquiry and analysis of the testimonies of 502 witnesses, 2,903 documents, and depositions running into 9,655 pages, the judge presented a thoughtful 700-page report in 1998.
The report rejected the lame official argument that the January 1993 riots were a “Hindu backlash” against the Radhabai Chawl incident in which a Hindu family was burnt alive. Rather, it established that after January 8, the Shiv Sena seized the lead in organising attacks on Muslims with the help of the police. Through its editorials, the Shiv Sena daily Saamna literally directed the rampaging mobs day after day to attack specific Muslim bastis.
The Srikrishna Report indicted 31 policemen; the “effete” political leadership of the ruling Congress, which failed to prevent, stop or control the violence; and Hindu communal leaders including Bal Thackeray, Gopinath Munde, Madhukar Sarpotdar and Ram Naik for inciting mobs and even the police to violence. (More than 350 Muslims died in police firings.)
The list of indicted police personnel runs all the way from deputy commissioner to constable. The commission’s report found them “utterly trigger-happy”, “guilty of unnecessary and excessive firing resulting in the deaths of innocent Muslims”, “extremely communal” and “guilty of inhuman and brutal behaviour”. They were “responsible for allowing a violent mob to hack” Muslims to death and of actively conniving with communally charged rioters.
The commission accused the police of going on a “rampage” and “attempting to shield miscreants belonging to the Shiv Sena” and “openly indulging in riots while carrying naked swords…”. Some of these officers, it said, “suppressed evidence”, “misled senior police officers”, “looted articles and furniture” and “allowed the kidnapping of an 18-year-old girl and the brutal murder of a handicapped person”.
The commission recommended strict action against these culprits and said their lapses in investigations were not merely cases of negligence but deliberate attempts to suppress material evidence and sabotage the process. The Sena-BJP government, which came to power after Srikrishna submitted his report, shelved it. But the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government, which followed, promised to take the actions recommended by the commission. The government’s performance on this score has been abysmal. Most of the 31 indicted policemen were promoted, including Joint Commissioner R.D. Tyagi. All were released on bail, and not one policeman spent a single day in a police lock-up. A majority escaped criminal prosecution because no charge sheets were filed.
The government’s response to the recommendation to prosecute Sarpotdar, a Member of Parliament, was equally supine. On January 11, 1993, Sarpotdar and six others were found travelling in a jeep, with three guns, two of them unlicensed, and other weapons. They were allegedly directing armed mobs to kill Muslims.
Sarpotdar was arrested, but let off. He was later twice detained under the National Security Act, but his detention was lifted on flimsy technical grounds. Within four years, he was back carrying out his communal antics as during the installation of a Ganesh idol in Mumbai’s western suburbs. Yet, no action has been taken against him and no prosecution launched. The same applies to Thackeray, who never disowned the Saamna editorials that incited and directed his supporters to lynch Muslims. Yet, the Bombay High Court refused to issue a writ to the government to prosecute him.
Nearly 15 years on, this pattern of unequal, discriminatory treatment of different groups of offenders is sending an unmistakable message to millions of Indians – not just Muslims but secular citizens belonging to all faiths: namely, the Indian police and justice delivery systems have a majoritarian bias.
This is simply incompatible with the minimal requirements of an inclusive society and a secular political order that aspires to any legitimacy. Unless we want to foment alienation among our minorities and create deep social rifts, we must take corrective action now – by implementing the Srikrishna Commission’s recommendations and through other steps. Or else, it could soon be too late.
Aug. 11-24, 2007
Justice is no half-way house
by Praful Bidwai
Convictions for the 1993 Mumbai bombings have deepened Muslim despondency about securing justice for the victims of the far worse riots that preceded them.
V. GANESAN
Justice B.N. Srikrishna. A 2004 picture.
JUDGE P.D. Kode of the Mumbai Special Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act has become a hero to large numbers of middle-class people. He appeared to represent a refreshing exception to their negative impression of the justice delivery system by virtue of his image of being bold, upright, impartial and, above all, tough in sentencing a hundred people for planning, causing and abetting the March 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts. But his judgment has polarised opini on as never before and created new insecurities among Muslims.
This polarisation poses a serious challenge to the entire Indian political system and the credibility of its pluralist-secular claims. This challenge must be faced squarely if the public’s faith in the possibility of securing justice for all citizens is to be restored. The task of mending and reinforcing India’s secular fabric, which has frayed over the past two decades or more, can no longer be postponed.
The polarising impact of Justice Kode’s verdict was magnified because of the unprecedented months-long period over which the sentencing process was spread, the dramatic suspense over Sanjay Dutt’s fate until July 31, and because of the judge’s personal remarks – “I’m only taking six years from your life”, which he hoped would be a hundred years long – which were considered by many to be out of order.
Another factor that amplified the effect was the coincidence of the trial’s last few days with the drama in Australia involving Mohammed Haneef, which exposed his unfair detention and the presumption of his “guilt by association”, and finally his release and return to India. This highlighted the commonness of the discrimination Muslims face in different countries.
A lot of questions are likely to be raised about the pardon Justice Kode granted two crucial witnesses, Badshah Khan and Murad Shah (both pseudonyms), whose testimony was central to the conviction of the more than 30 accused persons, including 11 of the 12 bombers sentenced to death.
Khan was part of the bomb blast conspiracy and a member of the Tiger Memon gang. By his own account, he was recruited to execute the plot and was involved in all three parts of the conspiracy: arms training in Pakistan (in mid-February 1993), smuggling of arms and explosive material into India, and loading and deploying vehicles carrying the bombs. Dutt was convicted on a far lesser charge but sentenced to six years, while Khan was let off. Similarly, all those connected with Yakub Memon were given harsh sentences.
Justice Kode acquitted Khan and Shah under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the courts to pardon anyone who makes “a full and true disclosure of all the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offences…”. It is not clear why the same criterion was not applied to some of the others.
As for Yakub Memon, several reports suggest that the Central Bureau of Investigation tricked him and his family (barring Tiger) into returning to India by assuring them that if they were truly innocent (as they believed they were), their rights would be protected in a fair trial in democratic India and they would be exonerated (for a vivid account of Yakub’s story, see “Will someone shed a tear for Yakub Memon?” by Maseeh Rahman in T he Sunday Express, August 5). Yakub was sentenced to death – not for directly planting bombs or killing anyone but for organising the money to buy the vehicles used in the blasts.
None of this speaks highly of the trial or, more broadly, of India’s justice delivery system. But what rankles even more is the failure of the government to bring to book the culprits of the December 1992-January 1993 communal riots in Mumbai following the razing of the Babri Masjid. About 900 people were killed in these – more than three times the number who perished in the March 12 bombings. Nearly two-thirds of those killed were Muslims. They became targets of a most pernicious form of collusion between communal Shiv Sena and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders and the Congress-led government, in particular its police.
As Justice B.N. Srikrishna, who inquired into the violence, concluded, there was a “cause-and-effect” relationship between the riots and the bomb blasts that followed. After a painstaking inquiry and analysis of the testimonies of 502 witnesses, 2,903 documents, and depositions running into 9,655 pages, the judge presented a thoughtful 700-page report in 1998.
The report rejected the lame official argument that the January 1993 riots were a “Hindu backlash” against the Radhabai Chawl incident in which a Hindu family was burnt alive. Rather, it established that after January 8, the Shiv Sena seized the lead in organising attacks on Muslims with the help of the police. Through its editorials, the Shiv Sena daily Saamna literally directed the rampaging mobs day after day to attack specific Muslim bastis.
The Srikrishna Report indicted 31 policemen; the “effete” political leadership of the ruling Congress, which failed to prevent, stop or control the violence; and Hindu communal leaders including Bal Thackeray, Gopinath Munde, Madhukar Sarpotdar and Ram Naik for inciting mobs and even the police to violence. (More than 350 Muslims died in police firings.)
The list of indicted police personnel runs all the way from deputy commissioner to constable. The commission’s report found them “utterly trigger-happy”, “guilty of unnecessary and excessive firing resulting in the deaths of innocent Muslims”, “extremely communal” and “guilty of inhuman and brutal behaviour”. They were “responsible for allowing a violent mob to hack” Muslims to death and of actively conniving with communally charged rioters.
The commission accused the police of going on a “rampage” and “attempting to shield miscreants belonging to the Shiv Sena” and “openly indulging in riots while carrying naked swords…”. Some of these officers, it said, “suppressed evidence”, “misled senior police officers”, “looted articles and furniture” and “allowed the kidnapping of an 18-year-old girl and the brutal murder of a handicapped person”.
The commission recommended strict action against these culprits and said their lapses in investigations were not merely cases of negligence but deliberate attempts to suppress material evidence and sabotage the process. The Sena-BJP government, which came to power after Srikrishna submitted his report, shelved it. But the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government, which followed, promised to take the actions recommended by the commission. The government’s performance on this score has been abysmal. Most of the 31 indicted policemen were promoted, including Joint Commissioner R.D. Tyagi. All were released on bail, and not one policeman spent a single day in a police lock-up. A majority escaped criminal prosecution because no charge sheets were filed.
The government’s response to the recommendation to prosecute Sarpotdar, a Member of Parliament, was equally supine. On January 11, 1993, Sarpotdar and six others were found travelling in a jeep, with three guns, two of them unlicensed, and other weapons. They were allegedly directing armed mobs to kill Muslims.
Sarpotdar was arrested, but let off. He was later twice detained under the National Security Act, but his detention was lifted on flimsy technical grounds. Within four years, he was back carrying out his communal antics as during the installation of a Ganesh idol in Mumbai’s western suburbs. Yet, no action has been taken against him and no prosecution launched. The same applies to Thackeray, who never disowned the Saamna editorials that incited and directed his supporters to lynch Muslims. Yet, the Bombay High Court refused to issue a writ to the government to prosecute him.
Nearly 15 years on, this pattern of unequal, discriminatory treatment of different groups of offenders is sending an unmistakable message to millions of Indians – not just Muslims but secular citizens belonging to all faiths: namely, the Indian police and justice delivery systems have a majoritarian bias.
This is simply incompatible with the minimal requirements of an inclusive society and a secular political order that aspires to any legitimacy. Unless we want to foment alienation among our minorities and create deep social rifts, we must take corrective action now – by implementing the Srikrishna Commission’s recommendations and through other steps. Or else, it could soon be too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
