By Irfan Engineer
Implementation of Srikrishna Commission in public perception has been reduced to punishment of 31 police officials named in Srikrishna Commission Report. Even the secular minded citizens who stand for justice for all and not just to the victims of bomb blasts in Mumbai on March 12, 1993, have more often than not, focused themselves on punishing the 31 police officials.
These 31 police officials have been promoted in spite being indicted by the Srikrishna Commission and no doubt that should be condemned. The Maharashtra Government on the other hand is doling out statistics about actions taken against each individual officer – viz. trial (though farcial) and consequent acquittal in some cases, departmental enquiries in other cases (and again acquittals) and finally that nothing remains to be done. After the conclusion of the trial in the case of Mumbai bomb blasts, there is increasing pressure on the State Government to appear to be doing something about punishing those guilty of rioting. The only thing the State Government has done is to write to the Director General of Police to look into cases that might need re-opening. We are given to understand that, at the most some cases can be reopened and that is all. This too under the pressure that otherwise the Supreme Court may give the same directions that were given in the case of Gujarat – of re-opening some cases.
Let us look at some of the findings and recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission Report. The report says, “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 Samna and Navakaal. 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 Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray.” (Vol. I, Chapter III para 1.2 (i). In Vol. I, Chapter II, para 1.7 (v), the Report concludes, “On 1st January 1993, there was an article in Samnaa under the caption ‘Hindunni Akramak Vhayala Have’, openly inciting Hindus to violence.” With such material before the Government, what action has been taken against Samna and Navakaal? None.
In fact Former Municipal Commissioner J B D’Souza and other filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions of the Court to direct the Government to take action under section 153-A of IPC against Samnaa. Neither the Government took any action against Samnaa nor the High Court gave any directions. On the contrary, Maharashtra Government has throughout encouraged Samnaa and Navakaal to publish articles and editorials as it pleases, even in violation of laws of the land, by giving Government advertisements from public funds. Publication of material which incites and abets a crime is liable for criminal action and punishment is same as that of crime committed. Hundreds of innocent citizens died in the riots, much more that 257 who died in the Mumbai bombings. Punishment for conspiracy of bomb blasts is death sentence and to those who incited more than 257 deaths? Reward of advertisements from the state to go on publishing their newspapers. NO trial.
The Commission’s Report in Vol. I, Chapter II, para 1.7 (iii) observes that, “The Mahaartis were started from 26th December 1992 and kept adding to the communal tension and endangering the fragile peace which had been established. Some of the Mahaartis were later used as occasions for delivering communally inciting speeches and the crowds dispersing form the Mahaartis indulged in damage, looting and arson of Muslim establishments in the vicinity and on their way.” And at para 1.12 (ii) of the Chapter II, the report observes: “The Shiv Sainiks mobilized themselves for retaliating against the Muslims. The shakhas in different jurisdictional areas turned into centres of local commands. The attacks on Muslims by the Shiv Sainiks were mounted with military precision, with list of establishments and voter’s lists in hand.” Voters list in hand and military precision in other words is nothing but conspiracy. The charge of conspiracy for communal riots which resulted in cold blooded murder of about 2000 innocent people is registered against no one let alone been investigated. Even today it is not on agenda of state nor in minds of even most justice seeking secular person. Why?
The Commission Report indicates not only conspiracy for riots, it names the person who conspired, aided, abetted and incited the communal riots. The Commission in Vol. II, chapter III, para 9.6 observes “… it was clear that (Bal) Thackeray was directing the Shiv Sainiks, shakha pramukhs and other activists of Shiv Sena to attack the Muslims, to ensure that they give tit-for-tat and ensure that ‘not a single landya would survive to give oral evidence.’… While this kind of instructions were being given by Thackeray on telephone, Shri Ramesh More and Shri Sarpotdar also came in an reported the situation in their respective areas. They were given similar instructions … He also told someone to catch hold of A.A. Khan (Addl. Commissioner of Police, north region) and send him to “Allah’s home” at once and to finish off “that womaniser” Mundkur, but to take precautions while finishing them off.”
In Vol. I, Chapter II, para 1.27, the Commission Report observes “From 8th January 1993 at least there is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organizing attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders of Shiv Sena from the level of Shakha Pramukhs to the Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray who like a veteran General commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organized attacks against Muslims” The veteran General who commanded his army with military precision and voters list in hand named in the Commission Report, no FIR registered till date. And the only thing that justice and peace loving citizens are asking for is action against 31 police officers.
With such observations of the Srikrishna Commission, to limit the issue of implementation of the Commission’s Report to punishment of just 31 police officers is asking to punish only the vulnerable amongst the guilty. Why has the Maharashtra Government not even registered any offence against Bal Thackeray for his role during the riots?
Implementation of law enacted by the legislature is not left to the sweet will of the executive in a democracy. It is the Constitutional duty of the executive, and in fact it is under oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. If the Executive fails in their duty to uphold law, and is unable or unwilling to arrest the culprit and is not acting without fear or favour, it amounts to break down of constitutional machinery and liable to be dismissed. In the case of Manjit Sawhney V/s. Union of India, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that it is the Constitutional duty of the State to protect the lives of citizens. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution entitles the citizens to protection from collapse of law and order situation that occurred during the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi and directed the state to award huge compensation to the Sikh widow who lost her husband during the riots. If only timely action had been taken against those guilty of riots, the terrorists would not have been able to recruit such a large army to carry out its design and the 257 innocent lives and many others injured during the bomb blast could have been saved.