FACE THE NATION
Font Size 
Law of the land differs for different communities?
Published on Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 09:47, Updated on Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:16 in India section
Tags: Face The Nation, 1992 Mumbai Riots
SRIKRISHNA COMMISSION REPORT |
|
|
|
|
|
The Srikrishna Commission was set, up to inquire into the 1992-1993 Mumbai riots.
Related Stories
Gujarat dry status an ideological hangover? 
- India dry, Pawar says well-stocked for 13 months | Drought diary
- Manmohan, Gilani fix up meeting without a date
- India puts it in writing: Pak planned 26/11
- Burger King apologises to Hindus for offensive ad
- SC takes up plea against gay sex, issues notice
- Suspected Dawood aide acquitted in fake currency case
- Another 'lover' arrested at Sania Mirza's house
- Mumbai, Pune and Delhi face 30-40 pc water shortage
- Politicos get into the ABC of Varun's Z-plus security
Photogallery
 |  |
The sentencing of actor Sanjay Dutt to six years imprisonment in the 1993 Mumbai bombings on Tuesday brought to an end one of the world's longest terror trials during which 12 people were sent to the gallows and 20 got life imprisonment.
It was 14 years and four months ago on March 12, 1993, when a string of powerful blasts killed 257 people in Mumbai and injured hundreds.
Many believe that the blasts were a conspiracy by Mumbai's so-called Muslims. But what of the so-called Hindu riots before the blasts in which 900 people died?
As the 1993 blast accused are punished, riot-accused from all over India are often acquitted or not charged at all.
That was the issue discussed on CNN-IBN show Face The Nation: Does the law discriminate between riot and blast accused?
To debate the question, on the panel were social activist and Secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace Teesta Setalvad, Maharashtra’s Additional Director General of Police Arup Patnaik (he was the deputy commissioner in Bandra when the riots took place in 1992), senior Supreme Court lawyer, Kamini Jaiswal and columnist and member of BJP Sheshadri Chari. The discussion was moderated by Sagarika Ghose.
Blasts vs riots
What is the difference between the riots and the blasts in Mumbai in ’92-’93? Aren’t riots also an act of terror?
“No, riots are not acts of terror. Terrorism is a very definitive. It is a conspiracy against a nation and people. Riots are subject to cause and action theories. Here the TADA court judge has ear-marked why he has punished the people concerned,” said Sheshadri Chari.
Disagreeing with the argument, Teesta Setalvad said that Chari should read the Srikrishna Commission report properly.
“Justice Srikrishna says that the serial blasts were a reaction to the totality of Ayodhya and Mumbai. The Shiv Sena, led by Bal Thakeray, along with Madhukar Sarpotdar, Gopinath Munde and Ram Nayak functioned with the impunity of the street and Sudhakar Rao Nayak’s Congress government turned the other way. The riots were acts of mob terror and the blasts were acts of bomb terror. There is no difference between the two but the law treats it differently,” Setalvad said.
Riot cases take a backseat
So, why was it that not even one conviction had taken place in the riots case? Arup Patnaik, who was deputy commissioner in Bandra when the riots took place, was of the opinion that the blasts and the riots cases could not be compared.
“In both the riots in Mumbai, one in December ’92 and one in January ‘92, a large number of cases were registered for every small event. In the case of the blasts, one single case was registered,” said Patnaik.
But what about the 31 police officers who clearly have been named guilty in the Commission report?
Over 900 people were killed in the two rounds of rioting in December 1992 and in January 1993. In fact the Srikrishna Report named several prominent figures who had co-ordinated the carnage.
Charges have also been leveled against Sena leader Madhukar Sarpotdar and BJP leader Gopinath Munde for possessing illegal weapons under the National Security Act and under TADA. However, these charges were dropped by the BJP-Shiv Sena government and successive governments have let the report gather dust.
Defending his party workers, Chari said that there were different cases and they had no direct link with the riot acts and that the report only had the findings and not accusations.
But the Srikrishna report says that Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thakeray directly incited his party workers to attack Muslims.
“For all this, we have to collect evidence and prove it in the court of law,” argued Chari.
Dealing with riot cases
Is it true that gathering evidence is difficult in a riot situation? When the police is trying to control the situation, it could be difficult to prove who carried out the homicide.
Lawyer Kamini Jaiswal disagreed. “A lot of people have been convicted in riot cases. Where there is a will, there is a way. For eight years the Srikrishna report has been pending before the Supreme Court because no action is being taken. It’s been 15 years since the riots took place and now they are saying they have no evidence. I’m shocked at how blasts and riots can be called different. Even a terrorist says he has a cause.”
Chari, on the other hand, insisted that riots were different because they took place at the spur of the moment with an immediate cause. The cause for the blasts were directly linked to the events in Ayodhya, he said.
At this point, Setalvad lashed out at Patnaik, saying the way he spoke showed that he was not serious about investigating the findings in the Srikrishna report.
“It means that Mr Patnaik is not serious of investigation riot offences. All that the Maharashtra government has done despite the report, first under the BJP-Shiv Sena government was to scotch the cases and then under Congress and NCP, was to mislead the public,” she said.
“What about the Congress-NCP government? They have been in power for the past two years. What have they done?” asked Chari.
However, Setalvad said that they had taken up the issue under the Right to Information Act.
But does the police need to learn a few lessons on how to investigate and collect evidence on riots, so that those guilty of homicide are prosecuted?
“In every case, there is always scope to learn,” said Arup Patnaik.
“But are you not shocked that 31 police officers have been accused of homicide in the riots?” Ghose asked Patnaik.
“No, I am not involved in that. My role was to control the riots at that point of time and maybe the initial investigation into the blasts. So in the later developments like the Srikrishna Commission, I had no role to play,” he said.
Supreme Court rules?
If there is no evidence to convict those accused, how can a court or judge prosecute any one?
“If the Commission has found evidence to find 31 police men guilty, how is there no evidence? No cause is good enough for killing innocent people. So how do we justify and distinguish blasts and riots?” asked Jaiswal.
“Right from the star, the Srikrishna Commission report has been politicised. There is a large section of the ‘psuedo-secular’ body in Maharashtra and for them whatever happens against Hindus are all to be punished and whatever happens to Muslims…The Commission has not gone into the details of getting the evidence. Without working it out in a meticulous manner if you try to convict anyone it will be travesty of justice,” said Chari.
“Mr Chari should keep quiet because he belongs to the guilty BJP party. From July ’92 onwards, Mr L K Advani has been raving and ranting about Ayodhya. The law is very clear on hate speech,” said Setalvad.
But the Supreme Court said on Wednesday that the Srikrishna report is not enough to order the re-prosecution in the ’92 riots case. A comprehensive affidavit is required to be filed from people who want the Srikrishna report implemented.
“That’s because 15 years have passed and it’s shocking that it took so long for the SC to make such a statement. They should have pulled up the Maharashtra government for not taking action,” said Setalvad.
But the fact still remains that there is no comprehensive affidavit actually pointing to lapses on part of the Maharashtra government. So what can the Supreme Court do?
“The Supreme Court is not to prosecute. For both parties, BJP and Congress, it is a question of ‘I scratch your back, you scratch mine.’ Everybody is in the same bathtub, naked. The blasts case that went on for 14 years was a shame on the judiciary. Those who were accused of being involved in the blasts should have been tried separately and those who were accused of other criminal acts should have been tried separately. You can’t label people as terrorists just because they have done something wrong,” said Kamini Jaiswal.
Is this a chilling case of official prejudice, of people being labeled as terrorists because of religion?
“No. There could be an issue of delayed judgment and I agree 14 years is too long a period. But that’s a systematic error for which something has to be done in Parliament and the state legislatives. But judiciary can’t be blamed for it. It has done an excellent job in this case,” said Chari.
Opinions aside, the chilling truth that has emerged is that though 100 people have been convicted in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, not one conviction has taken place in the 1992 riots case.
Results of the SMS poll:
Yes: 93 per cent
No: 7 per cent
| Ads by Google |
| Related Ads: | |
URBANEYE
Read Comment | Post Comment
it is a foolish and worst debate. here is not question of community , but it is a conflict between
Read Comment
.. it is good that the channel has tried to draw attention to the long pending just cause of the
Read Comment
What abt Modi and his State Machinery in the from of Vanzara and others ? Did they not hve made
Read Comment
Right! Law of the land differs for different communities. Ask the Kashmiri Pandits!!
Read Comment
Its a shame on our part that even after 60 years of Independence we are not able to conrol Riots.
Read Comment
Read more comment »