HVK Archives: Comments on Srikrishna Commission Report (Chapter 1/4)
Comments on Srikrishna Commission Report (Chapter 1/4) - (no publication)
Hindu Vivek Kendra
()
August 28, 1998
Title: Comments on Srikrishna Commission Report (Chapter 1/4)
Author: Hindu Vivek Kendra
Publication:
Date: August 28, 1998
Comments on
Srikrishna Commission Report
Chapter I
In para 2, the Commission deals with the politics of the Hindu-Muslim
issue. The views of the Commission can be summarised as follows: The sense
of camaraderie `vaporised and vanished with the two-nation theory
advocated by Jinnah'. The provisions in the Constitution guaranteeing
fundamental rights to the minorities were supposed to subside their
feelings of apprehensions. However, they were `merely driven deeper into
the psyche to fester there and manifest themselves at periodic intervals.'
As a reaction, the special provisions in the Constitution with respect to
the minorities `brought in its wake a resentment against the minorities on
the part of the majority, i.e. the Hindus.'
The Commission should have set out the basis on which it has come to this
conclusion. To have done a proper job, it should have asked opinions from
various people. The above stated views are the standard excuses being
given, and it would appear that the Commission has relied on the opinions
of a very small group of people.
On the Ram Janmabhoomi issue, it summarises its view as follows: "Right
through the Forties, a section of Hindus started the clamour for
"liberalization" of several mosques, which according to them, were temples
oppressively converted into mosques during Muslim reign. The Government at
the Centre, instead of addressing itself to an acceptable resolution of
the issue, dragged its feet, perhaps with the fond hope that the problem
would soon disappear if swept under the carpet..... Time and again, the
Hindutvawadis (as the Hindu communal parties are popularly called) raised
a shrill cry for construction of a temple at Ayodhya at the very place
where the Babri Masjid stood, claiming that it was the hallowed place
where Lord Shri Ram, the embodiment of all that is Indian, was born. This
was, of course, stoutly resisted by the Muslims who refused to give up
even an inch....... The issue became contentious and landed itself in the
lap of Courts. Thanks to the inevitable judicial delays, the issue
smoldered in Courts, till the Nineties when the Bhartiya Janata Party
revived it to regain lost political milage. The Rath Yatra Shri L. K
Advani, leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party, refocussed attention the Ram
Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. The inevitable clashes and minor cases
of rioting, which took place along the route of the Rath Yatra, as
reported by the newspapers, were the distant thunderclaps portending the
storm to come....... The vacillating attitude of the Central Government
emboldened the sudden installation of the idols of Ram Lalla in the
disputed structure and spawned the demand for permission to carry out
pooja therein....... The Government of India held rounds of unfruitful
talks with the representatives of the Babri Masjid Protection Committee
and representatives of the Hindutvawadi parties."
The Commission should have stated on what basis has this been stated. For
example, the `vacillating attitude' that is mentioned above refers to that
of the Nehru government, since the statues of Ram Lalla appeared in the
Babri structure in December 1949. The BJP wanted to put forward its views
on the subject to the Commission. It had even got a date for Shri Ram Naik
of the BJP to depose before the Commission. However, the Commission
cancelled the deposition, since it said it was not going to deal with the
issue. Had it heard Shri Naik, it would have found that the VHP had made
serious efforts at negotiations, and that these were frustrated not so
much by the obscurantist Muslim leadership, but by those who call
themselves as secularists.
4 In this para, the Commission has narrated various incidents in Mumbai
under the title "Events of 6th December, 1992."
In para 3.1, the Commission says the destruction of the Babri structure,
which began at 1230 hours, was not anticipated by the government. In para
2.9, the Commission has said that the first news of the destruction
started to come in since 1430 hours. Thus, any event prior to 1430 hours
in Mumbai cannot be linked to the destruction.
At 4.2. the Commission talks about a gathering of 155 people at 0010 hours
at Ambedkar Garden, Charni Road, and trouble near Bharat Cafe in Chembur
at 0045 hours. At page 12, the Action to be Taken Report (ATR) says that
Ambedkar Garden is in Chembur (not Charni Road) and the gatherng was an
annual event of the Dalits who had come to celebrate Dr Babasaheb
Ambedkar's death anniversary. The ATR also says that Bharat Cafe is at
Ghatkopar and not Chembur, and that there was no record of any incident at
the place.
At 4.3, the Commission says that at 1134 hours there was trouble at Lohar
Chawl. The ATR also denies the alleged trouble at 1134 hours in Lohar
Chawl. In the Vol II of the report, there is no mention of this incident
in the details provided on the LT Marg Police Station, where Lohar Chawl
is located.
The programme for 1100-1200 hours, mentioned at 4.4, where various
meetings took place, was part of an all India programme where those who
could not go to do Kar Seva at Ayodhya were asked to gather. It was thus a
pre-determined programme and knowledge of the same was available to all
concerned.
At 4.5, the Commission says that at 1233 hours, 300/400 people hold a
meeting opposite Shiv Mandir, Dadar. This is an event that took place
before the news of the destruction of the Babri structure came in.
At 4.6 the Commission says that a crowd is reported near Elphinstone
Bridge at 1400 hours. In the details in Vol II of the relevant police
station (Bhoiwada), there is no mention of such an incident.
At 4.7, the Commission says that the Babri structure is demolished at 1230
hours and the news of the event is widely publicised by the electronic
media. The demolition started at 1230 hours, and was completed around 1700
hours. The first reports in the electronic media came at 1430 hours, as
mentioned in para 2.9.
The cycle rally in Dharavi mentioned at 4.8, has a confusing story. The
Shiv Sena says that they had taken the permission, but the Commission
tries to disprove this. However, the Commission has accepted that the
rally was planned by local leaders, and hence not an overall programme for
the city. No other event of this type in other places in Mumbai in its
report. It has converted the rally as a `victory' rally for the whole
city. Although the Commission says that one stone was thrown at a mosque
(Vol II, para 10.18, page 51) during the rally, it feels that this was
enough provocation for Muslims to act at other places in the city. This
event was not reported in any of the newspapers of December 7, clearly
indicating that it was of a minor nature.
In Vol I, the time of the rally is given as 1640 hours, while in Vol II it
becomes `about 4:00 pm". Vol I mentions 200/300 people participated in the
rally. Vol II does not mention any number. The news of the destruction of
the Babri structure was first available at 1430 hours. One has to stretch
one's imagination that an event of this type could have been organised in
such a short time. In Vol II, it is mentioned "That neither the cycle
rally nor the meeting (that followed the rally) was held on the spur of
the moment, is clear from the fact that a big stage had been prepared at
Kala Killa where the meeting was to be held." The issue is not whether
police permission was taken, but whether the rally was pre-planned, in
which case it cannot be termed as one to celebrate the destruction of the
Babri structure and it cannot be termed as a victory rally.
At 4.9, the Commission says that a crowd collected at Imam Wada, Bhendi
Bazar in Pydhonie jurisdiction at 1952 hours. In Vol II, the Commission
says that the first major incident in this jurisdiction is reported for
2325 hours at Minara masjid, which is reported at 4.14 as happening at
2322 hours.
At 4.11, the Commission says a crowd of Hindutvavadis collected at
Jijamata Lane in Byculla jurisdiction at 2042 hours. However, in Vol II
there is no mention about the event. Either it was insignificant, in which
case it should not have appeared in Vol I, or it did not take place at
all. The first incident mentioned in the Byculla jurisdiction is said to
have happened on Dec 7 at 1100 hours.
At 4.12, the Commission talks about stone throwing at 2110 hours in
Jogeshwari. In Vol II, it says that the first incident was at 1530 hours
on January 7.
At 4.13, the Commission says that there is trouble at Kala Killa, Chembur,
at 2115 hours. First, the Kala Killa is in Dharavi, and it finds mention
in Vol II with respect to the cycle rally, which has been analysed by the
Commission in great details. It is also mentioned in 4.8, and the time is
1640 hours.
At 4.14, the Commission says that the crowd of 500 people gathered at 2322
hours near Minara Masjid, became violent, and the police were successful
in dispersing it within four minutes. In Vol II, para 23.7, page 131, it
is mentioned that the crowd gathered at about 2325 hours. Subsequently it
goes into great details of the event covering two pages of the report. It
would be difficult to accept that all this happened in a matter of four
minutes. In Vol II it says, "The manner in which the crowd was handled by
the police displays lack of sensitivity on part of the police." There
seems to be no effort of harmonising the two volumes of the report.
At 4.15, the Commission says that there is an attempt at arson in Pydhonie
at 2334 hours. Vol II makes no mention of the incident.
At 4.16, the Commission says that at 2344 hours the police fired one round
near Minara Masjid, and that 200 people gathered near Mandvi Head
Quarters. Both these fall under the Pydhonie police station. In Vol II,
there is no mention of either events. In fact, at 4.14, it is stated that
the Minara Masjid event was successully dispersed at 2326 hours.
At 4.17, the Commission talks about an incident of stone throwing at
Bhendi Bazar at 2352 hours. There is no mention of this event in Vol II.
At 4.18, the Commission says there was stone throwing near Momin Masjid,
Mohammed Ali Road at 2350 hours. This incident is not mentioned in Vol II.
At 4.19, the Commission talks about private firing at Bhendi Bazar at 2356
hours. Vol II does not mention the incident. The Commission has
consistently tried to dismiss most of the instances of private firing.
At 4.20, the Commission talks about firing and stone throwing in Bhendi
Bazar and Dongri at 2358 hours. There is no mention of either incident in
Vol II. In fact in Dongri, the first incident is reported for 2345 hours,
and there was a mild lathi charge with no injuries.
Out of the 18 incidents reported by the Commission, 4 are not relevant
since they happened prior to the news of the destruction of the Babri
structure came in. Two of the four find no mention anywhere in Vol II, one
was a pre-determined programme that took place all over the country, and
the police station of the fourth is not covered in Vol II. Out of the
balance 14, eleven incidents find no mention in Vol II. Two are confusing
and one cannot be checked from Vol II since the police station is not
covered. The objective of the exercise of narrating the incidents by the
Commission was to give an indication that there was a spontaneous Muslim
reaction. Analysing the information given by the Commission, this
conclusion can be easily disproved.
Vol II mentions four incidents that have happened on Dec 6 but have not
been included in para 4. In Ghatkopar, at 2200 hours, in two incidents,
Muslims attacked Hindus with weapons and damaged temples and property. In
Deonar Muslims attacked government property at 2100 hours, and in another
incidentg at 2300 hours they attacked the house of a local BJP leader. In
the latter incident, two temples and a school were also attacked. Here it
is amply clear that the Muslim were violent and organised. Have these
incidents been not mentioned because they go against the so-called
spontaneous theory of the Commission?
It is pertinent to deal here with a part of the testimony of Shri S K
Bapat, the then Commissioner of the Police of Mumbai. He has been one
person who has been particularly castigated by the Commission, the media
and many pro-Muslim politicians. In Vol II, page 157, para 2.14, the
Commission has said: "It appears that the State Government and the police
were sold on the theory that the Hindu backlash came on account of the
said gruesome incidents. Though Bapat has been quick to point out these
incidents in his affidavit, he claimed total ignorance with regard to
several equally gruesome incidents in which Muslims were victims, which
were put to him in his cross-examination by Shri Muchala. For example, he
seemed either not to recollect, or be unaware, of the arson of a timber
mart in Ghatkopar jurisdiction on 15th December 1992 resulting in four
Muslims being burnt alive, an arson in Goregaon jurisdiction on 20th
December 1992 in which one of the Muslims was burnt and killed, of the
attack on Muslim hutments in M. P. Mill compound on 2nd January 1993 and
large scale arson of Muslim hutments on 4th January 1993 in Mahim
jurisdiction and the morcha led by Shiv Sena leaders Shri Ramesh More and
Shri Gajanan Kirtikar to Jogeshwari Police Station, en route causing havoc
in Chacha Nagar and damaging the Chacha Nagar Masjid, of the arson of a
taxi carrying two Muslims which was burnt causing their death on 7th
January 1993 in Antop Hill jurisdiction and the Devipada incident in which
two Muslim ladies were stripped naked and attacked by a mob and one lady
and her uncle were murdered and burnt. There is legitimate grievance made
by the Muslims that the memory and information of Shri Bapat is either
selective or that he had been selectively fed with only such material to
be placed before the Commission as would suit a particular theory being
advanced by the State Government and the police." In Vol II, in the
respective police stations, except two, the other five are not mentioned.
It is understood that these five were quoted from the Urdu newspapers of
the time. The Commission has accepted the word of the counsel for the
Muslims, and did not bother to cross-check with the records of the police
stations. On the basis of apparently fabricated incidents, the Commission
has accused Shri Bapat of bias against the Muslims.
Of the two incidents, in one, a Muslim was injured, and a mosque was
attacked. There is no mention about the seriousness of the damage to the
mosque. If it was significant, then there would have been details given.
It is indeed surprising that the Commission expects a police officer of
the stature of a Commissioner to remember minor incidents.
In case of the other incident, in Shri Bapat's statement as a witness, he
clearly narrates the details of it. The Commission has tried to pass blame
on Shri Bapat where no blame could be passed. It is difficult to believe
that there cannot be anything else but mischievous intent on part of the
Commission. Shri Bapat's comments on this incident is: "I remember this
incident because of the gruesome nature of the incident."
To understand the fallacy of the spontaneity theory, it is also necessary
to point out that the Commission has accepted that the action to demolish
illegal structures and the drive against the criminals were projected as
targeted against the Muslims in Nov 92, and the Muslims were provoked to
act. This could not have happened unless there were organisations behind
the programme.
(continued...)
Back
Top
|
