Politicians let off the hook

Excerpts from the Srikrishna Commission report detailing offences along with the status quo of cases and offenders as determined by inquiries made via the Right to Information act

Ø Turning to the events of January 1993, the commission’s view is that though several incidents of violence took place during the period from 15th December 1992 to 5th January 1993, large-scale rioting and violence was commenced from 6th January 1993 by the Hindus brought to fever pitch by communally inciting propaganda unleashed by Hindu communal organisations and writings in newspapers like Saamna and Navaakal. It was taken over by the Shiv Sena and its leaders who continued to whip up communal frenzy by their statements and acts and writings and directives issued by the Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray. The attitude of the Shiv Sena, as reflected in the Time magazine interview [January 25, 1993] given by Bal Thackeray, and its doctrine of ‘retaliation’, as expounded by Shri Sarpotdar and Shri Manohar Joshi, together with the thinking of Shiv Sainiks that ‘Shiv Sena’s terror was the true guarantee of the safety of citizens’, 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.

Ø There were 16 reports made to the Press Council against Saamna for publishing objectionable and provocative materials in its issues during 1992 and 1993. He [Vasant Deshmukh, then addl commissioner of police, SB-I, CID] produced a statement giving details of cases registered under Section 153A against Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray.

Ø From the list of cases registered against Bal Thackeray by the government, two cases (Sr Nos. 4 & 5) were offences registered in 1988 in which the matters are still pending with government for sanction. The papers are neither returned nor is the sanction granted or refused. Two other cases (Sr Nos. 10 & 11) charge-sheet has not been filed as sanction has not been granted by the government. Thus out of the total 24 cases filed against Bal Thackeray, 16 could not proceed as the government did not grant sanction for prosecution; in six cases sanctions had been granted and charge-sheets filed but the government decided to withdraw the cases and withdrew them on 28th August 1996 and 18th October 1996. Two cases are still pending in criminal courts.

(RTI findings by journalist Meena Menon: Offences against Thackeray were registered at the Dadar police station (a total of nine cases) against the Saamna and Bal Thackeray for publishing provocative articles. These cases are registered vide CR Nos. 64/93, 65/93, 66/93, 68/93, 420/93 and 453 of 1993, which ended in acquittal. The cases in CR Nos. 421/93 and 541/93, 855/93, have been classified as ‘C’ Summary and closed. Appeals were made by the state against the acquittal orders in CR Nos. 420/93 and 453/93 in the Bombay High Court against an order by the chief metropolitan magistrate dated as far back as July 25, 2000. On February 22, 2007 the high court dismissed both cases, observing that no ends of justice would be served by taking up seven-year-old cases! In its order the high court also observed that the bomb blasts resulted in the riots! The state has not appealed the recent acquittals.)

Ø With regard to his [Sarpotdar] being apprehended by the military on 11th January 1993 while being in possession of an unlicensed firearm, his stand was that he had a fully licensed weapon, that the military personnel after stopping his car and making him get out made him stand at a distance facing the other side and therefore he was not aware whether any other firearms were recovered from the vehicle in which he was travelling. His explanation is that he and all other persons travelling with him were active trade unionists and they had met together in his office for some urgent work and were proceeding ahead. Presence of hockey sticks is explained by him as requested for self-defence.

Ø As far as the incident of alleged private firing at the time of the morcha to the Nirmal Nagar police station on 11th January 1993 is concerned, Sarpotdar was busy inside the room of the senior police inspector having discussions and he only heard about the private firing incident.

Ø On the issue as to whether the Shiv Sena was exhorting people to register themselves as kar sevaks as directed by Bal Thackeray, his evidence is unreliable and contradicted by the evidence of Shri Manohar Joshi. His evidence that the boards put up at different shakhas were put up by local shakha pramukhs without informing any of the higher-ups also cannot be accepted.

Ø Shri Sarpotdar propounded an interesting theory of ‘retaliation’ adopted by the Shiv Sena, namely, that because innocent people were attacked in Jogeshwari, other innocent people could be attacked in Colaba by way of retaliation. He conceded that retaliation against any community would not be a democratic way though it may be a natural reaction and that if people did so it would lead to a situation of taking the law into their own hands.

Ø He accepted that in view of its wide circulation, the editorials in Saamna were capable of moulding public opinion in Bombay.

Ø When confronted with the interview given by Bal Thackeray to Time magazine, published in its issue dated 25th January 1993, this witness maintained that the views were not the views of Bal Thackeray because Thackeray had issued a denial in that respect and, in any case, he did not subscribe to the views expressed therein.

Ø The witness was forced to concede that mahaartis started to pressurise the Muslims to give up namaaz on roads would be politically motivated mahaartis because the use of loudspeakers on masjids and namaaz on streets was itself a politically motivated activity. Though he agreed that widespread looting and damaging of establishments of Muslims by people dispersing after mahaartis was bad, he had no explanation as to why this happened.

Ø The stand of this witness on whether the Shiv Sena had sponsored mahaartis also appears to be unreliable and contradicted by the other evidence on record, including photographs of Manohar Joshi leading a mahaarti in Dadar area and the photograph from Saamna dated 2nd January 1993 and Shri Joshi’s evidence itself.

Ø Under the leadership of local Shiv Sena leaders led by MLA, Shri Sarpotdar, no less than three morchas were taken to the police station and on each occasion the grievance made was that the police were not giving protection to the Hindus in spite of murderous attacks on them and that, on the contrary, innocent Hindu boys were being rounded up by the police for no reason. Such morchas were taken to the police station on 6th December 1992, 11th January 1993 and 12th January 1993. Though it is claimed by Shri Sarpotdar that these morchas were spontaneous outbursts on the part of the Hindu community which had been subjected to atrocities by the Muslims, it is difficult to swallow this. It is also difficult to accept the suggestion of the Shiv Sena that all the local Shiv Sena leaders coincidentally happened to be present in the morchas that came to the police station. That these morchas were intended to browbeat and pressurise the police to deter them in the performance of their duties appears to be clear. Another significant fact is that in one of the morchas allegations were made against additional commissioner of police AA Khan, that he was targeting innocent Hindus and opening fire on them – an attempt at invidious discrimination on communal grounds.

Ø While the police were prompt in arresting Muslim miscreants at all levels, they showed marked reluctance to arrest any of the miscreants connected with the Shiv Sena. In fact, the assessments made in the crime reports suggest that if accused belonging to higher and lower ranks of the Shiv Sena were arrested, there was likelihood of a flare up in the communal situation and therefore it was decided that no Shiv Sainik should be arrested. This view was taken not only by the lower police echelons but also had the approval of the assistant commissioner of police and the zonal deputy commissioner of police. Thus there have been cases where the accused Shiv Sainiks were charge-sheeted even without arrest and interrogations, apparently under the oral orders of deputy commissioner of police Pande. It appears to the commission that repeated morchas and flexing of muscles by the Shiv Sena hierarchy, and the crowds led by them, affected the police morale and psyche.

 Ø On 11th January 1993 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 .99 mm 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. It took the police two days to register an offence against Shri Sarpotdar and his companions (vide LAC No. 22 of 1993), which was registered only on 14th January 1993. The explanation by Shri Sarpotdar for carrying the hockey sticks, choppers and sticks was that, as the area was disturbed, they were carrying them for self-defence. Further explanation is that Shri Sarpotdar and all his companions were active trade unionists, that they had met in the trade union office for carrying on routine trade union business though the situation all round the area was communally explosive. The explanation, to say the least, strains one’s credulity. 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 neither an attempt to invoke the provisions of the TADA act nor to oppose bail to the accused persons on the ground that the provisions of the TADA act were applicable. The service of the charge-sheet appears to have been inordinately delayed. When Shri Sarpotdar gave his evidence before this commission, as late as 15th January 1996, he claimed that he had not been served with the charge-sheet!!

Ø Though Shri Sarpotdar was later on detained twice under the National Security Act, on both occasions his detention orders were quashed on technical grounds. His activity at the time of the reinstallation ceremony of the Ganesh idol on 26th December 1992 was communally provocative. The Ganesh idol was taken in procession through the jurisdictional limits of Kherwadi and Nirmal Nagar and terminated at the Ganesh Mandir on AK Marg. The slogans shouted, the placards carried and the speeches made on the occasion were, without doubt, communally provocative. Though Shri Sarpotdar claims that this procession was not organised by the Shiv Sena but by the local Ganesh Mandir trustees, one can read between the lines. The presence of almost all the local Shiv Sena leaders could not have been fortuitous; the placards carried by the processionists unequivocally said, "Shiv Senechi dahashat, hich sarvajanik surakshitata (Shiv Sena’s terror is the only guarantee of public safety)". Shri Sarpotdar claims total ignorance of the communal speeches delivered at the reinstallation ceremony at the Ganesh Mandir, so also of the writings on the placards. Though Shri Sarpotdar claims that he had been permitted by the then additional commissioner of police, VN Deshmukh, and other police officers to take out this procession, it is denied by Deshmukh and the other police officers. The fact that the police launched prosecution in respect of this incident and had used the contents of the speech made by Shri Sarpotdar on this occasion as one of the grounds for his detention under the National Security Act, belies the stand of Shri Sarpotdar.

(RTI findings: Case dropped and buried during the SS-BJP government’s tenure in Maharashtra. Sarpotdar thereafter stood for elections and won from late Congress MP, Sunil Dutt’s constituency – Mumbai North-west. There was no attempt by the present government to reopen the case.)

Ø On 9th January 1993 at about 12.00 hours a morcha of about 10,000-15,000 led by the local Bharatiya Janata Party MP, Shri Ram Naik, local Shiv Sena MLAs, Shri Anna Dange, Shri Ramesh More and Shri Gajanand Kirtikar, marched to the police station protesting that the police were taking action only against Hindus and demanding release of Hindu accused arrested in the riots (CR No. 21 of 1993). While the morcha was still stationed outside the police station, additional commissioner of police, North region, AA Khan arrived at the spot and finding his way barred by a restive mob, resorted to a lathi-charge to disperse the mob. The dispersing mob indulged in damage and looting of property, arson and stone throwing at police and others. The violent Hindu mob then regrouped at the Income Tax Colony and burnt alive one Muslim woman and stabbed and burnt alive a Muslim boy in the PP Dias Compound. A large number of Muslim properties were damaged and set on fire. The mob also damaged the Ismail Yusuf College Masjid. The police firing resulted in one Hindu being injured. Three Muslims died and one Muslim was injured in mob violence.

(RTI findings: The case under sections 302, 307, 324, 427, 215, 188, etc, sessions case number 440 of 1997, acquitted three of the major accused while the case against one – Gajanand Kirtikar – is pending. The judgement acquitting the late BJP MP Ram Naik and others was dated April 24, 2005 to which no appeal was made by the state of Maharashtra.)

Ø There is also the incident in which Vivek Maitra, personal assistant of Shri Gopinath Munde, the then opposition leader, was apprehended near Adarsh Apartments, Golibar Road on 13th January 1993 by the army column. The vehicle in which he was travelling was intercepted near Adarsh Apartments on Golibar Road and it was found that Vivek Maitra was carrying a revolver and one empty case and reported that the said firearm was licensed to Shri Gopinath Munde. Both Vivek Maitra and Shri Gopinath Munde have been prosecuted vide LAC No. 23 of 1993.

(Excerpts from the Srikrishna Commission report, Chapter III, Term No. (II), Srikrishna Commission, Volume II.) n