Serving an ultimatum to Devendra Fadnavis, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief SharadPawar asked him to focus on the government formation in Maharashtra, which has taken a backseat following a wrangle between the BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena over ’50-50’ power sharing.

Speaking to CNN News 18, Pawar insisted that the government be formed before the Ayodhya verdict – the hearings for which concluded recently. He said, “Everyone knows what happened in Mumbai last time over Ayodhya”. “For a peaceful Maharashtra, a new government should be put in place.”

He was referring to the gruesome Bombay riots which took place 25 years ago in 1992, after the demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya. More than 900 lives were lost in the incident.

The BJP and Shiv Sena, for the past week have been embroiled in a prolonged battle, with the UddhavThackerey led party demanding the chief minister’s post after they dipped the BJP’s share with a striking performance in the elections.

The Sena on Thursday indicated that it had not given up its claim to the post of chief minister, saying that equal sharing of power must mean sharing of the top post as well. Adopting a harsh tone, it accused the BJP of enacting a “second act” of the “use and throw” policy while dealing with its ally.
After Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut met Pawar on Thursday, speculations were rife that the party could take the opposition’s support and settle for an alternative arrangement.

But, Pawar denied having a talk with Raut, while also confirming that his party would not support the BJP to enable a stable state government. He said, “The mandate in Maharashtra is not fractured. It is the responsibility of the BJP-Sena to form the government.”

Yet, he showed hos continued support for Sena citing that the BJP had promised to reach an understanding with its ally before the elections. He added, “BJP had said there will be an understanding on equal basis. This was prior to assembly elections. That statement shows what Sena has said has some truth.”
This year, BJP ended with fewer seats in the elections that it did in 2014. The Sena believes it deserves an equal timeshare in power, which means two-and-a-half years for a Chief Minister from each party.

As did Sanjay Raut on Twitter, Pawar too called Fadnavis ‘arrogant’ and ‘overconfident’. Also taking a dig at Union Home Minister Amit Shah he said he wasn’t sure if Shah was the Home Minister because he seemed to be working only for the BJP “full-time”.

Related:
Saffron Fades: Maharashtra State Elections 2019
VadaPav Stall to VidhanSabha: Meet Vinod Nikole, Maharashtra’s lone communist MLA
Uneventful Dance of Democracy
The Adivasi communist who made it to the Maha assembly
 
 

The post Invoking 1992 riots, Pawar asks BJP-Sena to hasten Mahagovt formation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Well Done! The Muslim terrorists who killed 257 and maimed hundreds of innocent residents of Bombay in March 1993 have been punished. Many of them have been sent to the gallows, others awarded life sentences and so on.

But what about those terrorists who butchered 575 (at least) and maimed hundreds of people of the minority in December 1992-January 1993 in the same city. In fact, some of the instigators later occupied high constitutional offices in democratic-secular India. This is true of the Sikh minority too: While those dubbed “Khalistani terrorists” were hanged or killed on the roads, those perpetrators of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs, the Indian State is yet to conclude its process of finding the real culprits –and give justice.

Sadly, with regards to both Communal and Caste violence, India has two kinds of laws, one for minority/Dalits and other for majority/high Castes.
 
Whenever the former suffer, or are the Victims, the Indian State plays a game of forming Commission upon Commission, to ensure that the heinous crimes against minorities and Dalits disappear from the public memory. In this context, the 1992-93 Bombay violence becomes an interesting case study. If violence is however, believed to have been perpetrated by the minorities/Dalits, the punishment is instant.
 
This latest judgment ensures punishment for March 1993 perpetrators but despite Justice BN Srikrishna Commission Report holding several Hindutva-driven organisations responsible for the targeted killings of the Muslim minority in December 1992-January 1993, and also indicting senior and other police officials for crimes of omission and commission, no criminal prosecutions resulted, leave alone convictions.
 
One unfortunate aspect of our post-Independence governance has been that whenever the country witnesses the large-scale violence against minorities and Dalits, the search for perpetrators continues endlessly and criminals rarely punished. Major incidents of violence against minorities like Nellie massacre (1983), Sikh massacre (1984), Hashimpura custodial massacre of Muslim youth (1987), pre/post-Ayodhya mosque demolition violence against Muslims (1990-92), and Kandhmal cleansing of Christians (2008) are testimony to this reality. The Gujarat genocidal carnage (2002) is one exception where thanks to the efforts of some rights organizations as many as 172 perpetrators, to date, have been punished.

In the case of brute anti-Dalit violence, the narrative is no different. The major incidents of persecution and massacre of Dalits; 1968 Kilvenmani massacre, 1997 Melavalavu massacre, 2013 Marakkanam anti-Dalit violence, 2012 Dharmapuri anti-Dalit violence (all in Tamil Nadu), 1985 Karamchedu massacre, 1991 Tsundur massacre (all in AP), 1996 Bathani Tola Massacre, 1997 Laxmanpur Bathe massacre (all in Bihar), 1997 Ramabai killings, Mumbai, 2006 Khairlanji massacre, 2014 Javkheda Hatyakand, (all in Maharashtra), 2000 Caste persecution in (Karnataka), 5 Dalits beaten/burnt to death for skinning a dead cow 2006, 2011 killings of Dalits in Mirchpur (all in Haryana), 2015 anti-Dalit violence in Dangawas (Rajasthan) are some of the thousands of incidents of the Dalit persecution most of the perpetrators remain unidentified. Moreover, in almost all the anti-Dalit violence cases, the culprits have been acquitted or released on bail despite murder charges against them.

These symptoms of majoritarianism in our institutions of governance –police (law enforcement), executive and even the judiciary need to be faced, head on. As a nation wedded to exalted ideals of democracy, secularism and egalitarianism we must never shy away from critically interrogating this dichotomy, and correcting it, head on. Or else our democracy will fall victim to the forces of  religious bigotry and casteist hegemony.

Hashimpura massacre where 42 Muslim youth in police custody were shot dead on the banks of a river by a PAC team all the culprits who were on bail were finally acquitted by the court in 2015.
 
 
 

The post The ‘Good’ Terrorism of December 1992-January 1993 v/s ‘Bad’ Terrorism of March 1993: Bombay appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: bhindibazaar.asia

On Friday, 24 years after the Mumbai bomb blasts of 1993, a special court convicted Abu Salem, Mustafa Dossa, Firoz Khan, Tahir Merchant and Riyaz Siddiqui for the serial explosions that killed 257 people. Another accused man, Abdul Qayyum, was acquitted of all charges.

Immediately after the blasts, the state government set up a special court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act to hold trials in the blast cases. So far, the TADA court has convicted 106 people for their involvement in carrying out the bomb blasts. Yakub Memon, one of the convicts, was hanged in July 2015.

The 12 blasts rippled down the spine of Mumbai on the afternoon of March 12, 1993. Orchestrated by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, the blasts were an act of revenge against the communal riots that swept through Mumbai in December 1992 and January 1993 after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. At least 900 people were killed in the riots and more than 2,000 were injured – the majority of them Muslims.

However, the state government’s response to the communal riots was significantly different.
 

The Srikrishna Commission dilemma

After the riots of December 1992 and January 1993, the state government set up a Commission of Inquiry under Justice BN Srikrishna. The Commission spent more than five years investigating the events of the riots, and published a comprehensive report that proved damning for the Shiv Sena, the nativist party that was elected to the Maharashtra government in 1995.

The Srikrishna Commission report indicted Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, other party leaders as well as the party mouthpiece Saamna for playing a major role in inciting communal passions and triggering Hindu attacks on Muslims during the riots. It described Thakeray’s role as that of a “veteran General” who “commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims”.

But even after conducting exhaustive investigations – much like a court of law – the Srikrishna Commission did not have the power convict any of the alleged perpetrators named in its report. Under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, an inquiry cannot be considered a court of law. Unsurprisingly, state governments appoint such commissions whenever they have no will to actually bring justice to crimes.

By constituting it as a commission of inquiry, the state government restricted the Commission’s powers to merely making recommendations for prosecution. Its recommendations were then taken up by the police for further investigation.

The recommendations in the Srikrishna Commission report were rejected outright by the Shiv Sena government, and over the years, successive state governments too did not act upon the recommendations.
 

The fallout

So far, only three people have been convicted for their involvement in the riots, all on relatively minor charges like hate speech and inciting violence. No one has been convicted for the serious charges of murder, rape or arson, not even the many assailants named in the Commission’s report based on witness testimonies. In the majority of cases, the police simply chose to close the investigations.

Over the years, several of the police personnel indicted in the report for their complicity in the violence went on to get promotions.

One of the three convicts was former Shiv Sena MP Madhukar Sarpotdar, who was found guilty in 2008 of carrying weapons during the riots. Sarpotdar died in 2010 without ever serving his jail sentence, and today, he has a park in suburban Mumbai named after him.

Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, whose recorded speeches from 1992 openly incited violence against Muslims, was arrested briefly, but the court eventually dismissed the charges against him by saying the statute of limitations had expired. When Thackeray died in 2012, he was given a state funeral.

This article was first published on Scroll.in

 

The post More convictions in 1993 Mumbai blasts case but no justice yet for victims of riots that came before appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

Like the average Hindu, the average Hindu policemen also believes that Muslims, generally, are cruel and violent by nature

It is not very difficult to identify reasons behind the discriminatory beha-vior of the police. The conduct of an average policemen is guided by those predetermined beliefs and misconceptions which influence the mind of an average Hindu. Like the average Hindu, the average Hindu policemen also believes that Muslims, generally, are cruel and violent by nature.

In the course of my study, I spoke to a large number of policemen working with different ranks. I was amazed to find that most of them seriously believed that apart from being cruel and violent, Muslims were untrustworthy, anti-national and easily influenced by a fanatical leadership and could indulge in rioting at the slightest provocation. Generally the policemen were in agreement that Muslims initiated riots. When I confronted many of them with the question as to why Muslims should start a riot as they suffered more, they replied with arguments that an average Hindu would use.

It is but natural that after being convinced of the mischievous role of the Muslims in riots most policemen do not have any doubts regarding the ways and means to check them. They sincerely believe that there is only one way to control a riot and that is to crush the mischief-mongering Muslims. Whenever an instruction is received from the state government or senior police officials to deal with the rioters firmly and ruthlessly, these instructions are interpreted in a prejudiced and biased way. Firmness and ruthlessness towards rioters is interpreted as firmness and ruthlessness towards Muslims. The various forms of firmness have distinct meanings: arrest means arrest of Muslims; search means searches of Muslim houses; and police firing means firing on Muslims.

Even in those riots where Muslims suffered from the very inception of rioting or where the killings of Muslims was totally one-sided, the policemen gave a very interesting picture of their way of thinking. It is not only during riots that they would believe that the riot was caused by the mischief of Muslims. While talking to some of the policemen posted in Bhagalpur (1989) and Bombay (1992-93), I was amazed to find that the perception of Muslims being violent and cruel was so deeply in-built in their psyche that even after admitting the disproportionate destruction of Muslim life and property, they had many “reasons” to deny the suggestion that “naturally non-violent and pious Hindus” were in any way responsible for the damage to the Muslims.

It is a common sight in the towns of northern India that the reinforcements sent  from outside during communal tensions, make their lodging arrangements in temples, dharmshalas and parks in Hindu localities or the space available in Hindu homes and shops

It is this psychology of the policemen which guides their reactions during communal strife. While combating riots, they start searching for friends among Hindus and foes among Muslims. It is a common sight in the towns of northern India that the reinforcements sent from outside during communal tensions, make their lodging arrangements in temples, dharmshalas and parks in Hindu localities or the space available in Hindu homes and shops. When the shops are closed during curfew, food, tea and snacks are supplied to them by Hindu homes. Members of the majority community, who in normal times may keep a distance from the police just like the members of the minority communities, suddenly see policemen as friends during communal tensions.

It is their natural expectation of a ‘friendly’ police that it will not use force against them. Whenever, the police uses force against Hindus, their reaction is that of an amazed and cheated group. The FIR lodged by Sri Ajit Dutta, D.I.G. during the riots of Bhagalpur (1989), very candidly underlines this mentality. It’s perusal reveals the interesting incidents of a law-breaking mob of Hindus, congregating on the road during curfew hours, expressing its dismay and anger when Mr. Dutta threatened them with police firing.

I am reminded of a similar personal experience at Allahabad (1980) when in Gadiwan Tola, I warned a Hindu mob bent upon rioting, that we would open fire if they did not disperse. I found that the crowd did not take it seriously at first and thought it was a joke. Subsequently, when they heard me ordering the head constable to open fire from his carbine, there was a clear look of disbelief and surprise in their eyes.

How far this deeply entrenched perception of Muslims being solely responsible for the riots and strict behavior towards them being the only way to quell a riot, affects the reactions of a policeman, may be illustrated with the example of Hashimpura where the savagery and horrifying non-professionalism of the police behavior is a matter of national shame.

The riots in Meerut (1987) were unprecedented in the toll of human life and for the long period of continued and unabated violence. The magnitude of the riot which started on May 17, 1987 can be gauged from the fact that to deal with it, the services of about 50 gazzetted police officers and magistrates, along with more than 70 companies of P.A.C., para-military forces and army were pressed in. The policemen deployed here harboured all the above mentioned beliefs and prejudices. When their tremendous round-the-clock vigil could not control the violence, some of them resorted to an act which could have not been imagined.

Being fully convinced that riots in a civilised society could be ended only by teaching the Muslims a lesson, one section of the P.A.C. picked up more than two dozen Muslims from a locality known as Hashimpura on the 22nd of May, where house-to-house searches were going on and killed them at two places in Ghaziabad, after transporting them there in one of their trucks.

I was Superintendent Police, Ghaziabad, at that time. After receiving the information, I got two cases registered against the P.A.C. The cases were handed over to the Uttar Pradesh C.I.D. After eight years of investigations, a charge sheet has been filed against the erring personnel of the P.A.C., only recently (1995).

Why should the P.A.C. commit such a detestable act? I had the opportunity to talk to a large number of policemen deployed in Meerut in this period during my tenure as S.P., Ghaziabad (1985-88) as also during the course of the present study. I wanted to understand the motivating factors behind such a heinous offence. The analysis of the psychology of these men will help us appreciate the relationship between the police and members of the minority communities.

Firmness and ruthlessness towards rioters is interpreted as firmness and ruthlessness towards Muslims: arrest means arrest of Muslims; search means searches of Muslim houses; and police firing means firing on Muslims.

Most of the policemen posted in Meerut in 1989 thought that the riots were the result of Muslim mischief. They were also of the opinion that Meerut had become a mini-Pakistan because of the stubbornness of the Muslims and that it was necessary to teach them a lesson in order to establish permanent peace in Meerut. They were badly affected by rumours which suggested that Hindus in Meerut were totally vulnerable to Muslim attacks. Their belief that Muslims of Meerut deserve a suitable lesson resulted in Hashimpura.

Instances like Hashimpura worsen the inimical relationship between Muslims and the police. This relationship is clearly visible during communal tension. We find that many riots start with a Muslim attack on the police. Quite often the presence of the police in a surcharged atmosphere fills Muslims with anger. Reacting to the demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, angry mobs of Muslims in other cities, venting their feelings of resentment on the street initially chose the police as their targets rather than ordinary Hindus.

There are many examples of communal rioting in which the trouble started as a clash between the police and the Muslims and then turned into a Hindu-Muslim conflict. The Idgah incident of Moradabad (1980) is an important example of this trend.

The most interesting example of the hostile relationship between Muslims and the police can be found in the behavior of a police party entering a Muslim locality during communal tension. The briefing, preparation and weaponry of this party intending to enter a Muslim locality for arrests, or searches, or even normal patrolling is as if it is going to enter enemy territory. I have seen many such groups and always found them full of apprehension and fear.

Their behavior is not without reason. Alertness on their part is necessary as they may be attacked at any time. Who is responsible for these feelings of distrust and enmity? Perhaps the seeds are to be found in the terms ‘we’ and ‘they’ used by police officials for Hindus and Muslims during their conferences, organised to devise ways and means to deal with a communal situation.

Reporting of facts, investigation into and prosecution of participants in communal riots is another area where we find a clear communal bias in police behavior. The reporting of facts is done at various levels. Intelligence reports being prepared at the level of police stations and intelligence units to be sent to government and senior police formations are normally affected by this bias.

For example, I have found one interesting thing in the lists of communal agitators being maintained at various police levels in Uttar Pradesh. For most of the officials responsible for maintaining such lists, a communal agitator means a Muslim communal agitator. Even during those days when Hindu communal forces were active in the movement of Ram Janambhoomi movement, it was very difficult to find names of Hindu inciters in the list.

What damage this bias can inflict on police professionalism can be understood from the incident of the destruction of the Babri Mosque. It is evident from the charge-sheet filed by the C.B.I. that the demolition of the mosque was the result of a well-planned conspiracy. None of the intelligence agencies could report this fact before the 6th of December, 1992.

A very heinous examples of this bias in reporting facts is available at Bhagalpur (1989). One hundred and sixteen Muslims were killed in village Logain on the 27th of October 1989. This brutal massacre was enacted by the Hindus of Logain and the neighbouring villages. Logain village is 26 kilometres from the district headquarters of Bhagalpur, with the police station only 4 kms away at Jagdisgpur. The Muslims killed were buried in the fields and cauliflower was grown over their dead bodies.

Out of the 181 Muslim inhabitants of the village, 65 survivors and their attackers went to many places, including Bhagalpur town, and reported this ghastly incident. Details were published in local and national newspapers. Inspite of this, the district and police administration of Bhagalpur kept denying any such happening till the 8th of December 1989, when a police party led by Sri Ajit Dutta, D.I.G. ,dug some of the dead bodies out of the fields.

Vibhuti N. Rai

(Excerpted from the writer’s recently published book, ‘Combating Communal Conflicts —Perception of Police Neutrality During Hindu-Muslim Riots in India’)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March  1998, Year 5  No. 41, Cover Story,

The post Through the prism of prejudice appeared first on SabrangIndia.