The March 11, 2016
The Hindu
A file photo of tents at a relief camp for riot victims at Bassi Kalan in Muzaffarnagar.
The Vishnu Sahai Commission serves its political purpose, pinning the blame for the Muzaffarnagar riots on a district officer and exonerating the political leadership
Commissions of inquiry into communal violence in India rarely end up 
indicting culprits but there are some like the Srikrishna Commission 
report on the Bombay riots of 1992-93 which at least present a surgical 
account of the state’s complicity and wilful ignorance by its agencies 
in preventing violence. The report of the Justice (retd.) Vishnu Sahai 
Inquiry Commission, set up to probe into the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, and tabled in the State Assembly on Sunday, does neither.
If there is one thing the report clearly does though, it is to 
completely exonerate the Samajwadi Party (SP) government despite the 
failure of the top leadership of the government to prevent and control 
the riots, one of the worst episodes of communal violence in recent 
memory. The 700-page account of the violence, prepared by the retired 
justice of the Allahabad High Court over a period of over two years, 
squarely blames intelligence failure and laxity on the part of 
administrative officials for the riots which claimed 62 lives and 
resulted in the displacement of over 60,000 people in Muzaffarnagar and 
Shamli districts of Uttar Pradesh.
The commission scrutinised the actions of 40 officials and names four of
 them — then Principal Secretary (Home) R.M. Srivastava, then Circle 
Officer Jansath Jagat Ram Joshi, then Muzaffarnagar District Magistrate 
Kaushal Raj Sharma and then Muzaffarnagar Senior Superintendent of 
Police (SSP) Subhash Chandra Dubey. However, it holds the then Local 
Intelligence Unit (LIU) Inspector Prabal Pratap Singh responsible, 
citing his failure to give correct intelligence inputs on the 
mahapanchayat held in Nagla Mandaur on September 7, 2013 which triggered
 the violence. The mahapanchayat was attended by 40,000-50,000 people, 
while intelligence inputs claimed that 15,000-20,000 people would be in 
attendance, the single-member commission said. “The Inquiry Commission 
has held that prima facie the main responsibility for the riots goes to 
Prabal Pratap Singh. Hence there will be departmental action against 
him,” says the 14-page action taken report submitted by the State 
government in the Assembly.
Clean chit to politicians
The Justice Sahai report gives the Akhilesh Yadav government a clean chit despite listing the reasons for the riots which directly indicate its abdication of responsibility. Even when the report highlights the laxity on the part of some top officials, it shies away from connecting the last few dots leading to the Chief Minister’s door. For instance, the report lists 14 reasons which led to communal polarisation and riots after the deaths of three young men, Shahnawaz, Gaurav and Sachin, in Kawal village of Muzaffarnagar on August 27, 2013.
The Justice Sahai report gives the Akhilesh Yadav government a clean chit despite listing the reasons for the riots which directly indicate its abdication of responsibility. Even when the report highlights the laxity on the part of some top officials, it shies away from connecting the last few dots leading to the Chief Minister’s door. For instance, the report lists 14 reasons which led to communal polarisation and riots after the deaths of three young men, Shahnawaz, Gaurav and Sachin, in Kawal village of Muzaffarnagar on August 27, 2013.
The second most prominent reason, the report says, was the transfer of 
the then District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar Surendra Singh and then 
SSP Manzil Saini just before the riots. “Their transfers resulted in 
antagonising the Hindu community (specially Jats) against the government
 and this antagonism was a major reason for the riots,” says the report,
 choosing to gloss over the fact that Mr. Yadav also holds the Home 
portfolio. It also says that the release of 14 Muslim youth who were not
 named in the FIR relating to the murders of Gaurav and Sachin, was seen
 as an attempt by the government to favour the Muslim community.
The report virtually gives a clean chit to politicians of all hues, 
including saffron. It talks extensively about the role of Bharatiya 
Janata Party (BJP) MLA Sangeet Som
 in uploading a video on social media — showing some youth being 
brutally killed in Afghanistan — and falsely linking it to the death of 
two Jat men, but does not recommend more charges against him than have 
already been pressed. The intention, it appears, is to deny any fresh 
ammunition to the BJP to bring Muzaffarnagar back into the political 
discourse. This, after ruling party realised that its strategy of 
playing along with the BJP in polarising western U.P. has not helped 
much, its candidate having lost in the recent Muzaffarnagar bypoll.
The government’s pre-emptive ploy seems to have worked somewhat. BJP 
leaders in Muzaffarnagar this reporter spoke to didn’t quite know how to
 react to the report’s findings. One of the main organisers of the Nagla
 Mandaur mahapanchayat called it a “bakwaas (nonsensical)” report.
With acquittals already happening in the riot-related cases amid 
allegations of pressure on witnesses to turn hostile, the victims were 
not expecting any radical justice from the report. But its denial of 
what thousands of men and women witnessed — the political ambition 
behind the incitement of violence — still shocked many.
Why table the report?
Uttar Pradesh, and its western belt in particular, has been witness to a long history of communal violence — and of inquiry reports into such outbreaks being given a quiet burial, be it the report of the Gyan Prakash Committee constituted to probe the Hashimpura massacre of 1987, in which 42 Muslims were killed by Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel; that of the Ghulam Mohammad Committee that investigated the killing of more than 60 people in Maliyana in 1987; or the report of the Ram Asrey Mishra Committee probing into the killing of 25 men in unprovoked police firing on an unarmed crowd of protesting Muslims in Muzaffarnagar in 1976. Why, then, was the Sahai report tabled? Perhaps because this once, it’s politically convenient for the ruling dispensation to do so, with a year to go for the Assembly elections. Not only because it takes the sting out of the BJP’s polarisation plans but also because, as some local-level SP leaders averred, it will dent the BJP narrative of the ruling party being “pro-Muslim”. The report thus has a political purpose to serve, much like the communal violence it was tasked to probe into did.
Uttar Pradesh, and its western belt in particular, has been witness to a long history of communal violence — and of inquiry reports into such outbreaks being given a quiet burial, be it the report of the Gyan Prakash Committee constituted to probe the Hashimpura massacre of 1987, in which 42 Muslims were killed by Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel; that of the Ghulam Mohammad Committee that investigated the killing of more than 60 people in Maliyana in 1987; or the report of the Ram Asrey Mishra Committee probing into the killing of 25 men in unprovoked police firing on an unarmed crowd of protesting Muslims in Muzaffarnagar in 1976. Why, then, was the Sahai report tabled? Perhaps because this once, it’s politically convenient for the ruling dispensation to do so, with a year to go for the Assembly elections. Not only because it takes the sting out of the BJP’s polarisation plans but also because, as some local-level SP leaders averred, it will dent the BJP narrative of the ruling party being “pro-Muslim”. The report thus has a political purpose to serve, much like the communal violence it was tasked to probe into did.
mohammad.ali@thehindu.co.in