Mumbai Riots 1992
Published in B&E
1992 MUTINY!
There is a growing clamour in India to punish those guilty of the 1992-93 riots that victimised the Muslim community. But unlike those accused of the bomb blasts, will the guilty here be brought to book?
In an atmosphere of communal polarisation, what does one expect from the police? The guardians of ‘public good’ are expected to be non-partisan; diligently douse the fires of bigotry & display compassion for the victims. And what happens when the police fails to meet these constitutional & of course, the moral obligations? In short-term, such a behaviour flares up the passions, leading to gruesome atrocities against the community failing to find favours with the protectors. In the long-run, the social fabric of the nation suffers an irreparable dent. This heinous crime was committed by the Mumbai police during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, where the Muslim community was systematically allowed to be butchered at the behest of saffron-clad politicians. Recollecting the police apathy & insensitivity during the riots, Prabhat Sharan, Senior Editor, The Free Press Journal told B&E, “I & a colleague of mine was sitting with a high ranking police officer & we heard police personnel on the wireless jocularly stating, Mandir Wahin Baneyenge and Udhar Landiya (a derogatory term for Muslim) ko marne ki report hai, zara dekh lo. The police officer did not know what to say he just sheepishly grinned.” The evidence of this, rather obnoxious behaviour of the Mumbai police is adequately documented in the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission report on Mumbai riots of 1992-93. These facts have recently been corroborated by a leading television news channel in India, which has released the wireless messages of the policemen, exposing them as accomplices in the brutalization during that period. Explaining the police behaviour Prabhat Sharan added “We cannot say the entire police force is communalised but then a section of it does carry the germ of hatred towards Muslims in their bosoms.” Now, if a section of the police force only carries the germ, it leads us infer that Mumbai police has been deeply infiltrated by communal elements belonging to the majority community & it is this section of the Mumbai police, which acted at the behest of their political masters instead of following the lawful command of their senior officers. And if this is true, then what happened in 1992-93, surely constitutes a mutiny in the police force.
“They neither obeyed nor did they disobey; they did what they felt and most of them were either polarised or scared to even approach any mob.” Prakash Deshmukh, Senior Journalist, Sakal & an eye witness to the riots told B&E.Those who argue that it was neither a mutiny nor a larger conspiracy reason that since the entire society was communally polarised preceding the demolition of the Babri Masjid & thereafter, a few policemen also got infected. Such an argument supports the view, that an aberration, for a few policemen to get infected with communal virus was a natural phenomenon. Outrightly refusing to categorise Mumbai police actions either in terms of mutiny or aberration, a noted lawyer & Counsel for a group of the victims in the Shri Krishna Commision, Niloufer Bhagwat told B&E, that “If it were a mutiny, one would have seen summary trial being carried out against the constables & officials, who disobeyed the constitutional command, but nothing of this sort has happened. The fact is that no tangible commands to help the victims emanated from the top. It was a larger conspiracy played out at the highest levels to divide the country to manage the discontent arising out of neo-liberal shift the economy was making in the 1990s.” Without drawing a macro-picture of the causes & effects of the neo-liberal agenda, one can say that riots were a systematic act of crime against a particular community. The policemen who collaborated with the lumpen element were a part of the plan executed with precision by political elements. The policemen who participated in the genocide did not get infected after the riots had broken out; they were in fact, already suffering from the communal cancer which had infiltrated their nerve centre much before the riots. That the infiltrated policemen were only used by the political class at that juncture to execute their well laid out plan is the moot point. Therefore, to deny this fact tantamounts to burying ones head like an ostrich to the reality that what happened in Mumbai in 1992-93 was nothing short of a mutiny.
In an atmosphere of communal polarisation, what does one expect from the police? The guardians of ‘public good’ are expected to be non-partisan; diligently douse the fires of bigotry & display compassion for the victims. And what happens when the police fails to meet these constitutional & of course, the moral obligations? In short-term, such a behaviour flares up the passions, leading to gruesome atrocities against the community failing to find favours with the protectors. In the long-run, the social fabric of the nation suffers an irreparable dent. This heinous crime was committed by the Mumbai police during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, where the Muslim community was systematically allowed to be butchered at the behest of saffron-clad politicians. Recollecting the police apathy & insensitivity during the riots, Prabhat Sharan, Senior Editor, The Free Press Journal told B&E, “I & a colleague of mine was sitting with a high ranking police officer & we heard police personnel on the wireless jocularly stating, Mandir Wahin Baneyenge and Udhar Landiya (a derogatory term for Muslim) ko marne ki report hai, zara dekh lo. The police officer did not know what to say he just sheepishly grinned.” The evidence of this, rather obnoxious behaviour of the Mumbai police is adequately documented in the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission report on Mumbai riots of 1992-93. These facts have recently been corroborated by a leading television news channel in India, which has released the wireless messages of the policemen, exposing them as accomplices in the brutalization during that period. Explaining the police behaviour Prabhat Sharan added “We cannot say the entire police force is communalised but then a section of it does carry the germ of hatred towards Muslims in their bosoms.” Now, if a section of the police force only carries the germ, it leads us infer that Mumbai police has been deeply infiltrated by communal elements belonging to the majority community & it is this section of the Mumbai police, which acted at the behest of their political masters instead of following the lawful command of their senior officers. And if this is true, then what happened in 1992-93, surely constitutes a mutiny in the police force.
“They neither obeyed nor did they disobey; they did what they felt and most of them were either polarised or scared to even approach any mob.” Prakash Deshmukh, Senior Journalist, Sakal & an eye witness to the riots told B&E.Those who argue that it was neither a mutiny nor a larger conspiracy reason that since the entire society was communally polarised preceding the demolition of the Babri Masjid & thereafter, a few policemen also got infected. Such an argument supports the view, that an aberration, for a few policemen to get infected with communal virus was a natural phenomenon. Outrightly refusing to categorise Mumbai police actions either in terms of mutiny or aberration, a noted lawyer & Counsel for a group of the victims in the Shri Krishna Commision, Niloufer Bhagwat told B&E, that “If it were a mutiny, one would have seen summary trial being carried out against the constables & officials, who disobeyed the constitutional command, but nothing of this sort has happened. The fact is that no tangible commands to help the victims emanated from the top. It was a larger conspiracy played out at the highest levels to divide the country to manage the discontent arising out of neo-liberal shift the economy was making in the 1990s.” Without drawing a macro-picture of the causes & effects of the neo-liberal agenda, one can say that riots were a systematic act of crime against a particular community. The policemen who collaborated with the lumpen element were a part of the plan executed with precision by political elements. The policemen who participated in the genocide did not get infected after the riots had broken out; they were in fact, already suffering from the communal cancer which had infiltrated their nerve centre much before the riots. That the infiltrated policemen were only used by the political class at that juncture to execute their well laid out plan is the moot point. Therefore, to deny this fact tantamounts to burying ones head like an ostrich to the reality that what happened in Mumbai in 1992-93 was nothing short of a mutiny.
The communal elements in the police force disregarded their constitutional & professional duty; switched over their loyalties to openly ally themselves with the political agenda of a particular hue. And if this does not constitute a revolt within, then we certainly need to redefine the word ‘mutiny’. Moreover, one need to appreciate that communal passions were being raised in the society for years preceding the riots. Did the police officials in Mumbai & the administration system in the country take any concrete measures to stop this virus from seeping into minds of their men? What programmes did the higher police management team launch to ensure the integrity of their rank & file is preserved during tough times? What did the police intelligence networks do to identify & weed out the politicized elements within their force? Search for the answers to these questions and all you will receive is a stoic silence from those who consider themselves to be professionals. By letting politics make inroads within the police structures, all that the police personnel have done is to fracture the state monopoly over organised violence. And no doubt it is because of this enfeebled monopoly that communal carnages continue to engulf our nation at repeated intervals.
No comments:
Post a Comment