HVK Archives: Comments on Srikrishna Commission Report (Chapter 3/4)
Comments on Srikrishna Commission Report (Chapter 3/4) - (no publication)
Hindu Vivek Kendra
()
August 28, 1989
Title: Comments on Srikrishna Commission Report (Chapter 3/4)
Author: Hindu Vivek Kendra
Publication:
Date: August 28, 1989
Srikrishna Commission Report
Chapter III
1.1 "As far as the December 1992 phase of the rioting by the Muslims is
concerned there is no material to show that it was anything other than a
spontaneous reaction of leaderless and incensed Muslim mobs, which
commenced as peaceful protest, but soon degenerated into riots. The Hindus
must share a part of the blame in provoking the Muslims by their
celebration rallies, inciting slogans and rasta rokos which were all
organized mostly by Shiv Sainiks, and to a marginal extent by BJP
activists."
At various places the Commission has mentioned about various Muslim
organisations, and in many cases it has criticised the police for not
seeking intelligence information on them. It has also said that the police
stations should have a Urdu reading member to keep a tab on what is
written in that press. Under the circumstances, it is not clear how the
Commission has denied any role to the Muslim organisations for their role
in fomenting the riots. Also see our comments on para 4 of Chapter I.
On the issue of the action of the Municipality against the illegal
structures and the action by the police against the criminals, the
Commission, even while accepting that they were not targeted against a
particular community, says, "Some of the Muslim extremists and
fundamentalists seized upon this opportunity to canvass that their
religious interests were at stake and that Muslims were being subjected to
systematic attack. This call to religion found a ready response amongst
the Muslim youth. This explosive mixture was ready to be ignited." (Para
1.2(iv) Ch II, pg 9). If this is correct, then obviously there were some
organisations that were behind the cause of further alienation of the
Muslim community.
Stray incidents by the Hindu community have been converted by the
Commission into a rule, and it is on this basis that it blames the Hindus
for the retaliation that they have taken. If the Muslims had not acted,
and if the government had taken firm action, would the retaliation have
taken place? The Commission has also not gone into the reasons why the
media, political leaders and ministers, has falsely reported that the
Muslims were targeted in December. It has mentioned some politicians
belonging to the Congress party and who were ministers at the time, for
interfering with the police functioning in Vol II, but not in Vol I. It
has not held any reporter or publication for this distortion. In fact, it
has accepted in totality the evidence presented by media persons who have
been guilty of the exaggeration of the police bias.
One journatlist, who is in the anti-Hindutva bandwagon, wrote the
following prior to the report being made public: "The evidence before (the
Commission) also destroyed the theory put forward by `progressive
intellectuals' and Muslims that the violent outburst by Muslim youth after
the demolition (of the Babri structure) was not communal but aimed only at
government property and personnel. Muslims attacked as many as 57 temples
between December 6 and 8 and killed six policemen." (Jyoti Punwani,
"Judging by silence", The Telegraph, April 25, 1998.)
1.2(i) "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
organizations and writings in newspapers like "Saamna" and "Navakal". It
was taken over by 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 Shiv Sena
as reflected in the "TIME" interview 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."
The Commission has mischievously divided the events of January to
indicated that the first phase was over by Jan 5. Looking at paras 1.8 and
1.10 of Chapter II, page 14, it is clear that even on Jan 6 and Jan 7, the
Hindus were at the receiving end. On Jan 7, the Commission reports that
stabbing incidents accounted for 16 Hindus dead and 41 injured, against 4
Muslims dead and 12 injured. The Radhabai Chawl incident happened at 0030
hours on Jan 8. Further more, it is at Chapter II, para 1.11 (relating to
the events of Jan 8) at section (ii) that the report says, "The Hindu
`backlash' commenced." Various inconsistencies in the report have been
mentioned earlier.
On Jan 6, there were 18 stabbing incidents, in which there were 14 Hindu
casualties and 2 Muslim. On Jan 7, there were 54 stabbing incidents, in
which there were 57 Hindu casualties and 16 Muslim. On Jan 8, there were
66 stabbing incidents, in which there were 40 Hindu casualties and 45
Muslim. From then onwards, the Muslim casualties increased.
The Commission talks about the writings in Saamna and Navakal. But nowhere
does it make any mention about the writings in the Urdu papers. The
lawyers for Shiv Sena had asked the Commission to get the necessary
papers, and review them by getting them translated. While it did this
exercise in case of Saamna and Navakal, it refused to do so in case of the
Urdu papers. In addition, the Commission has not taken into cognisance of
the role of the English media and some so-called secular Marathi media in
exaggerating the actions of the police in controlling the December riots.
That there was this exaggeration is accepted by the Commission in Chapter
II, para 1.4, page 12. The Commission does not mention specific sections
of the media which falsely accused the police of targeting the Muslims
when they were on the streets in December.
The Commission has come to its conclusions of the Shiv Sena ideology on
the basis of the interview in TIME magazine. This interview consisted of
about ten questions, with a question of about eight words, and an answer
to each in ten words. This is what the American media calls sound bites.
There is no chance to develope one's thinking in such a short space.
Balasaheb has been interviewed in the Indian media quite extensively. The
words of Balasaheb is supposed to have used in the Time magazine interview
should have been compared with what he said in these other publications.
In the judgement on a petition to prosecute Balasaheb for his views as
expressed in Saamna, the High Court judges opined that what Balasaheb was
referring to were Muslims who were working against the nation, and not the
whole community.
Moreover, there is a great deal of inconsistency in the then TIME magazine
reporter's version of why she could not produce the original tape. She
said (Vol II, para 7.2, page 171) that she had destroyed the same, when
she changed her job from the magazine to a TV channel. However, according
to the police office, Shri V N Deshmukh (Vol II, para 4.15, page 163), she
had said at the time that she had sent the tape to the magazine in the
USA. The Commission has commented that `there was no follow-up action
taken in this matter at all to compel her to produce the audio cassette.'
Given the nature of the interview, and the controversy it had created at
the time it had appeared, one would have thought that it would have been
prudent on the part of the reporter to have kept a transcript of the full
interview. It is obvious that either the police officer or the reporter is
telling a lie. The Commission should have identified the guilty person in
such an important issue. It is pertinent to point out that the Commission
has held both the reporter and the police officer in high regard as far as
their depositions are concerned.
The Commission refuses to accept the accept as valid the doctrine of
retaliation in terms of responding to events that have happened at another
place. Under the same criteria the Commission should have come down
heavily against the Muslims for responding to the destruction of the Babri
structure which had happened in Ayodhya. Hence, it was not at all
justified for the Muslims of Mumbai to have come out on the streets and
destroy temples in Mumbai. Yet the Commission has completely rationalised
the actions of the Muslims in Mumbai, and has said that they were
spontaneous and initially peaceful.
1.2(ii) "There is no material on record suggesting that even during this
phase any known Muslim individuals or organizations 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."
This is an example of white washing the role of the Muslim community and
many of its organisations, which have been instrumental in creating a
ghetto mentality amongst the Muslims. And if there was no Muslim
organisation that was responsible for the riots, why has the Commission
mentioned about the intelligence failure with respect to the Bombay Muslim
Action Committee? And why does the Commission feel that the police should
have a Urdu reading person at some of the police stations to keep a tab
about the writings in this section of the media? In trying to rationalise,
the Commission has become inconsistent.
(continued ...)
Back
Top
|
