September 28, 2000

This statement is in response to the joint statements of chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh and deputy chief minister, Chhagan Bhujbal made at a press conference on the issue of the implementation of the Justice Srikrishna Commission report, on September 27, 2000.

We find that the repetitious declarations of intent in the press conference by two senior political leaders are nothing more than delaying tactics and, moreover, stand belied by the government’s own stance declared in it’s affidavit before the Supreme Court submitted on September 5, 2000.

The apex court of the land had clearly spelt out, on August 21, 2000, that "there would be no re–assessment of the Justice Srikrishna Commission report" and demanded to know in detail the steps that the state government had taken.

In response, the state government has clearly shown that it values the findings of a bureaucrats’ committee (IAS/IPS officers) over the findings of a sitting High Court Judge.

Justice BN Srikrishna recommended criminal prosecution against 31 police officers and policemen for ‘dereliction of duty.’ The DF government has unilaterally decided to criminally prosecute only two while only 13 others will face a departmental enquiry.

Justice Srikrishna, while examining the Usman Suleman Bakery incident of firing by policemen had concluded, "The responsibility for (the death of nine innocent persons in the Suleman Bakery firing) must squarely fall on then joint commissioner of police, RDTyagi." The DF government’s affidavit states not only that it will not prosecute Tyagi but in fact gives him a clean chit: "No action was proposed against RDTyagi as the act was done in the discharge of his duty."

It was not just Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray who was held responsible for spearheading the attacks on Muslim shops and establishments by Justice Srikrishna through inciteful writings in the Saamna.

Justice Srikrishna also named many Shiv Sainiks (MLAs, corporators, and shakha pramukhs), a few Muslim leaders and even two Congress leaders for either leading attacks on innocent persons or establishments, carrying them out themselves; he even quoted incendiary pamphlets distributed in Urdu (CR NO 12 of 1993, for example, in Mahim) that contributed to the heightened communal discourse at the time.

Though four pages of the DF government affidavit detail the drama behind Bal Thackeray’s recent arrest and the fate of the public interest petition filed against him on the basis of his writings in Saamna, the affidavit is utterly silent on action against the likes of Shiv Sena leaders like Baburao Mane and Ramkrishna Keni (CR no 718 of 1992), former chief minister, Manohar Joshi, (Ex 3019 – JEU and 3021- JEU) Madhukar Sarpotdar (former MP), SS MLA Milind Vaidya, (Ex 1815–SS), SS leaders Ramesh More and Gajanand Kirtikar, SS leader Prakash Ayre (cassette no 35A dtd January 9, 1993) — for giving provocative speeches and leading mobs to attack homes and shops after conduction mahaartis.

Equally there is no mention of action against activists of the Tanzeem Allah–o–Akbar, named for violent acts in Dharavi, and the SIMI organization for provocative slogans and pamphlets.

SS leaders like Madhukar Sarpotdar and Milind Vaidya, apart from others like Gajanand Kirtikar and Prakash Ayre, have been found, after detailed examination by the judge to have a run of the local police station, able to pressurise the local police into releasing Shiv Sainiks legitimately arrested and prevent action on other violent offenders. This blatant sway that the Shiv Sena had over large sections of the Bombay police at that sorry time affected prompt protection of the victims, the fair and impartial registration of offences and thereafter the punishment of the guilty.

Two Congress corporators at the time, Eknath Gaikwad and Karuna Mhatre, have been named as accompanying Shiv Sainiks Prahlad Thombre (MLA) and Kalidas Kolambkar (MLA) with a 3,000 strong mob for the release of Prahlad Thombre’s brother, Bal Thombre, arrested by the Antop Hill Police Station for burning alive three Muslims in a taxi, on January 12, 1993 within 150 feet of the police picket!

The list is exhaustive. Each incident has been tackled with minute detail by the judge. For example, on Madhukar Sarpotdar and other Shiv Sainiks’ role in the jurisdiction of the Nirmal Nagar Police Station, the report details: "That these morchas were intended to browbeat and pressurize the police to deter them in the performance of their duties, appears clear…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 flare up in the communal situation and therefore it was decided that no Shiv Sainik would be arrested (Volume II, Chapter 1, 21.27)

Yet the affidavit of the DF government and its attitude reflected in banal assurances does not do justice to the gravity of state and civil society breakdown that Bombay witnessed at the time.

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Of the 112 cases that the DF government promises to re–open, will the above–mentioned politicians face judicial scrutiny?

Of the additional 65 cases that the government wants to re–open concerned with the conduct of men in uniform, will there be actual prosecution of the policemen found guilty? Nine of the 31 officers named by Justice Srikrishna for gross dereliction of duty have been promoted since 1998 especially by the SS–BJP combine at the time. Will they retain their pristine promotions and will no message be given that unprofessional conduct will not be tolerated?

The Public Hearing of Survivors of 1992–1993 held at KC college hall on September 24, 2000, recounted searing tales of persons, who have received no compensation even after seven–and–a–half years. At least 37 cases verified by the Citizens’ Watchdog Committee reveal that the cases are bogged down not out of any legitimate lack of verification but sheer callousness on the part of the administration and the executive.

Until July 1999, 249 children of riot victims were receiving Rs. 525 each for their tuition so that children do not drop out of the system from the National foundation of Communal Harmony attached to the union home ministry. The number of legitimate claimants to this right are much higher, at least 700 more children should be getting their due. But as of now even the initial 249 are not all receiving this amount; it was peremptorarily stopped last year.

There are two equally important broad issues here.

One is the issue of compensation and the psychological rehabilitation of survivors. The second is equally important, the justice issue, the punishment of the guilty. Both demand minute attention and on both these fronts the attitude of the present government lacks seriousness of intent.

Even yesterday, we have been told that yet another police committee will now go into the Srikrishna Commission report’s recommendations.

Each delay not only takes justice even farther away, it reduces the chances of the guilty being brought to book because there is greater chance of circumstantial and other evidence being frittered away.