ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Easy Way Out

I'm going to take the easy way, once again, to producing this week's column. That is, this will be a compilation of excerpts from elsewhere. Together they tell a sorry tale. (In fact, they tell a sorry tale individually too). Sorry or not, they also offer us a pretty clear snapshot of the place we find ourselves in today.

With no more ado, here they are: excerpts from the Srikrishna report that a certain Bal Thackeray and his hangers-on think is biased. These are as printed in various newspapers and magazines over the last few days. (I have not yet read the report, though I hope to, and offer you a sense of it, soon). No comment necessary, except one at the end.

On the December 1992 rioting:

"As far as the December 1992 phase of the rioting by Muslims is concerned, there is no material to show that it was anything other than a spontaneous reaction of leaderless and incensed Muslim mobs ... The Hindus must share a part of the blame for provoking the Muslims by their celebration rallies, inciting slogans and rasta roko which were all organised mostly by Shiv Sainiks and to a marginal extent by BJP activists."

The January 1993 rioting:

"The Commission observed that though some violent incidents were taking place, large-scale rioting was commenced on January 6 by the Hindus ... It was taken over by the Shiv Sena and the directives issued by Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray."

"There is no material on record suggesting that known Muslim individuals or organisations were responsible for the riots though a number of individual Muslims and Muslim criminal elements appear to have indulged in violence, looting, arson and rioting."

The murder of Mathadi workers:

"When the killers of Mathadi workers were not identified, Hindus, spearheaded by the Shiv Sena, kicked up a furore, saying the murderers were Muslims, giving a call for arms to Hindus. However, later it was established that the murderer of the workers was an alcoholic and the motive behind it was far from being communal."

The Radhabai Chawl murders:

"The communal passion of the Hindus were aroused to a fever pitch by the inciting writings in the print media, particularly Saamna and Navakal, which gave exaggerated accounts of the Mathadi murders and the Radhabai Chawl incident."

Demolitions in Bombay before the riots:

They gave a handle to some of the affected Muslim criminal elements. Some Muslim extremists and fundamentalists seized upon this opportunity to canvass that their religious interests were at stake... This found a ready response amongst Muslim youth. This explosive mixture was ready to be ignited."

Police treatment of/ attitude to Muslims:

"December 1992: Engaged in repairing cycles and hiring them out, Mohammed Baba Hashmi was going to Bainganwadi to buy cycle parts and was carrying Rs 7000 when the tragedy struck. At about 8 am, a police picket accosted him, abused him by calling him landya and hammered him with rifle butts. There was a Shiv Sena shakha situated near the scene. After assaulting him, the police signalled to the Shiv Sainiks, who assaulted him with choppers, rendering him unconscious. When he regained consciousness and returned home, bleeding profusely, Hashmi realised his shop had also been looted."

"The response of police to appeals from desperate victims, particularly Muslims, was cynical and entirely indifferent... The attitude was that one Muslim killed was one Muslim less... The bias of policemen was seen in the active connivance of police constables with the rioting Hindu mobs on occasion... Despite clear clues, the miscreants were not pursued, arrested and interrogated, particularly when the suspected accused happened to be Hindus with connections to Shiv Sena or were Shiv Sainiks."

Shiv Sena attacking Muslims:

"Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims ... under the guidance of several leaders of the Sena -- from various shakha pramukhs to the Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray who, like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks on Muslims... The attack on Muslims by Shiv Sainiks were mounted with military precision with lists of establishments and voters' lists in hand."

"The attitude of the Shiv Sena as reflected in the Time magazine interview given by Bal Thackeray and its doctrine of retaliation as expounded by Shri Sarpotdar and Shri Manohar Joshi ... were responsible for the vigilantism of Shiv Sainiks."

"Because some criminal Muslims killed innocent Hindus in one corner of the city, the Shiv Sainiks retaliated against several innocent Muslims in other corners of the city."

"The Commission has taken note of a gruesome incident at Devipada in which a Hindu mob surrounded, stripped and assaulted two Muslim women. While the older woman managed to run away, the 19-year-old girl was burnt alive. A Hindu woman later disclosed the names of the miscreants. The miscreants were arrested but the sessions court acquitted them on the ground that the panchanamas were defective and that no eyewitness was produced."

"Hindus led by Shiv Sena leaders Gajanan Kirtikar (now the minister of state for home) and Ramesh More took out a morcha on January 3. The participants later attacked the Chacha Nagar masjid and Muslims in the vicinity."

Maha Artis:

"Some of the Maha Artis were used as an occasion for delivering communally inciting speeches. The crowd dispersing from Maha Artis indulged in damaging, looting and burning Muslim establishments."

Sudhakar Naik, Congress CM at the time:

"Surprisingly, for a person who holds the office of CM of a state, Naik displayed ignorance about the proper authority who could give orders to the Army unit called in aid of civil authority and said that it would be some authority in the Army itself, though he was not able to say what would be the rank of such authority... He also said that he had never spoken to Thackeray about the communal riots."

Shrikant Bapat, then Commissioner of Police:

"When Bapat was pointedly cross-examined with regard to several incidents in which Shiv Sainiks were shown to have indulged in violent activities, he reluctantly conceded that though Shiv Sainiks might have been guilty of such acts, there was no material on record to show that they as a political party had indulged in any violent activities or supported them. As far as Muslim organisations are concerned, his answer was the same. In the face of the government's guidelines for dealing with communal disturbances issued on April 30, 1996, and the material which the police were in possession of, Bapat's attempt to give a sanitised version and a diplomatic answer does not impress the Commission."

Journalists who testified:

"Olga Tellis's conclusion is that the ISI was attempting to inflame the passions of the majority community by a series of stabbing incidents. The commission is not inclined to accept the conclusions drawn by Tellis and would prefer to draw its own conclusions."

"The commission finds no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Anita Pratap, then with Time magazine or the text of the interview during which Bal Thackeray had given his answers to pointed questions posed by the interviewer."

"There is hardly any material in the cross-examination brought forth to discredit the testimony of Yuvraj Mohite, senior reporter, Mahanagar, who said that he visited Thackeray's house ... and heard Thackeray issuing orders to finish landyas over the telephone. There is no contrary evidence adduced by the Sena or Thackeray and hence the Commission sees no reason for not accepting the testimony of this witness."

Madhukar Sarpotdar, Sena MLA seized by the Army during the riots:

"The Army column on patrol intercepted a jeep in which Shri Madhukar Sarpotdar and six other persons, including his son Atul, were travelling. They seized from their possession one Smith and Wesson revolver of .32 calibre, one Astra pistol of .20 calibre and one .99mm pistol, apart from two choppers, two hockey sticks and two sticks. While the Smith and Wesson revolver was licensed in the name of Shri Sarpotdar, the other two revolvers were unlicensed."

"His stand was that he had a fully licensed weapon, that the military personnel after stopping his car... made him stand at a distance facing the other side and therefore he was not aware whether any firearms were recovered from the vehicle in which he was travelling."

"The explanation of Shri Sarpotdar for carrying the hockey sticks, choppers and sticks was that, as the area was disturbed, they were carrying them for self defence... The explanation, to say the least, strains one's credibility."

"Although at the material time the mere possession of unlicensed firearms in a 'notified area' would have attracted penal liability under Section 5 of the TADA act, and the entire city of Bombay had been declared as a 'notified area,' there was no attempt to invoke the provisions of the TADA act."

Today, there are those who accuse Justice Srikrishna of bias. Of course, that's easier by far than punishing the guilty.

Of course, too, bias lies in the eyes of the biased. Or in the eyes of the guilty, which may be the same thing. Now if you're one of those who dislikes the conclusions Srikrishna has drawn, that may be something for you to think about.

Dilip D'Souza