SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

The News Is Public, At Any Rate

The rioting, if you remember, happened five years ago. Nearly nobody has been punished for the thousands of crimes that were committed then. Six months after the riots, Justice B N Srikrishna, appointed to conduct an inquiry into them, finally managed to begin work. Through the four-and-a-half years he spent on his inquiry -- one-and-a-half under the Congress, three under the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance -- it was plagued by obfuscations, delays, adjournments.

Not content with just those, the alliance government even shut down the inquiry altogether in January 1996. Among other reasons, they said it was "taking too long." Of course it was. The judge himself commented at the time: "What delayed the work was the change of government in 1995 (when the alliance took office). Since January (1995), the pace had slowed down considerably due to the change in government."

Four months later, after a request by the then prime minister, now prime minister again, the inquiry resumed. So did the obfuscations, delays, adjournments.

On February 16, 1998, the judge submitted the report of his inquiry to the government. We still don't know what it contains, because the government has not yet made it public.

Now some people remember those riots. Having lived through them, they remember what happened and who they think was responsible. Five years later, some other people don't seem to remember those details. They ask disarmingly: "How can we know who was responsible until the Srikrishna report is out?"

Good question. But of course the alliance government has not yet made the report public.

But also of course, there are other ways to answer that good question -- in your own mind, for yourself -- without waiting for Justice Srikrishna's report. Let me offer a flavour of just one of them. It involves no more than scanning the newspapers in the weeks since the report was submitted. Bear with me through a selection of quotes from only a few of those newspapers in those weeks. They may tell you a few things.

What's that about making the report public?

"The contents (of the report) are to be made public tomorrow, if not today."

Madhukar Sarpotdar, Shiv Sena MP, quoted in Afternoon, February 18, 1998.

"The report ... will not be made public unless it is first placed before the Maharashtra legislature, which begins its sittings on March 16."

The Times of India, February 23, 1998.

"We will not hide any content of the report and will make it public within a week."

Gopinath Munde, Maharashtra Deputy CM, quoted in The Times of India, February 24, 1998.

"Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi has reiterated that the report ... would be tabled before the state legislature, which begins its budget session on March 16."

The Times of India, March 5, 1998.

"The Bombay high court ... ordered the Maharashtra government to explain why it was making contradictory statements in the court and outside about the date of publication of the Justice B N Srikrishna report."

The Times of India, March 11, 1998.

"You (government of Maharashtra) say something to the court and then say something else to the public." Justice B P Saraf, to Maharashtra Advocate-General C J Sawant, quoted in The Times of India, March 11, 1998.

"Both the deputy chief minister and the chief minister are making statements about publication of the report. The scenario is confusing." Advocate-General CJ Sawant to the court, quoted in The Times of India, March 11, 1998.

"The Maharashtra government on Wednesday declined to give a commitment to the Bombay high court on whether it would table the (report) in the current assembly session."

The Times of India, March 26, 1998

"The Maharashtra government will definitely not table the Srikrishna Commission report on the Bombay riots in the legislature on Friday as promised by the chief minister and in all likelihood it will defer it to the next session."

The Asian Age, March 27, 1998.

"Mr Dalwai said Chief Minister Manohar Joshi, (prior to the assembly session) had disclosed that the Commission report would be presented in the second week after the commencement of the Budget session. 'Today is the penultimate day (of that second week) and the Commission report is yet to be tabled. ... When will it be presented?' (Mr Dalwai asked) The Asian Age, March 27, 1998.

"Joshi (assured) the Maharashtra legislative assembly on Friday that efforts would be made to table the report by April 20. ... (He) said that the government wanted to table the report as early as possible, even before April 20, if possible."

The Times of India, March 28, 1998.

Why these tortuous manoeuvres to avoid making the report public? You decide. But what reason does the government offer us for them? That it wants to follow the law. Yes. Which means, it says, that it has also to prepare and submit an "action taken report" .

"Joshi told the house that his government was willing to table the report of the Commission 'tomorrow if law permitted it.' "

The Times of India, March 27, 1998.

"Despite a specific question from the court on Wednesday, thegovernment kept mum on whether it would table the report in the current session if the translation and action taken report were not complete by (the end of the session)."

The Times of India, March 26, 1998.

"(A) high-power committee of seven officers (has) been appointed ... to consider the report and prepare an ATR. ... Mr Joshi said the committee had notified him that the work could take four to five months."

The Times of India, March 28, 1998.

"(Joshi) quoted the legal opinion tendered by the advocate-general, (which) said the government was bound to place the Commission's report and the ATR simultaneously before the house."

The Times of India, March 28, 1998.

But wait. Is that ATR really necessary?

"A division bench (of the Bombay high court) comprising Justice B P Saraf and Justice S Radhakrishnan observed there was no bar on the government tabling the report without the action taken report."

The Times of India, March 26, 1998.

"Eminent jurist Nani Palkhivala said the report could be tabled at any time without an action taken report. He said 'There is no need to submit an ATR at the time the report is tabled.'"

The Asian Age, March 27, 1998.

And in any case:

"The Commissions of Inquiry Act ... gives the state no excuse for not making public the report of an inquiry commission."

Mid-Day, March 9, 1998.

Manoeuvres or not, some members of the Sena-BJP alliance don't see what the fuss is all about.

"Such issues (making the report public) should not be the basis of political importance during elections... (Only) those issues which are very closely related to the public should be brought to the fore."

Vaijayanti Goyal, BJP MLA, quoted in The Asian Age, February 18, 1998.

"[MLAs of the ruling alliance] did not want the report tabled [and demanded] a discussion on crop damage due to unseasonal rains. They alleged that precious time of the House was being wasted by the Opposition."

The Asian Age, March 27, 1998.

Regardless, some people do still have an idea of who was responsible for the riots.

"The abrupt scrapping of the Commission (in January 1996) led to the universal conclusion that the less than year-old Sena-BJP government didn't want the truth about the riots to emerge."

Mid-Day, February 17, 1998.

"There can be only one reason for the Sena's obvious reluctance to make public the findings of the Srikrishna report: the Commission has probably concluded that the party was responsible for fanning the flames that consumed the city during those dreadful days."

R M Lele, letter to The Times of India, February 23, 1998.

"Now the report is ready but the (Shiv Sena) is trying to postpone it being made public because it is bound to come down heavily on the SS." Bombay Times, March 13, 1998.

"The Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party government will nullify the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission. ... (Even) if the Commission recommends the filing of cases under the Indian Penal Code against Sena leaders, it will not do so. ... Requesting anonymity, a Sena leader said that there is a belief that the Srikrishna Commission has recommended that criminal cases be filed against Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray and its Member of Parliament Madhukar Sarpotdar."

Mid-Day, March 27, 1998.

"Legislator Kirit Somaiya (BJP) ... said his party was proud of all that happened during the riots following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the bomb blasts in Bombay in 1993."

Mid-Day, March 27, 1998.

And finally:

"Sometimes giving the house keys to the thief saves our lives." A Behrampada resident, explaining why people there voted for the Shiv Sena in last year's municipal elections, quoted in Mid-Day, February 25, 1998.

You see? You can learn a lot from reading the newspapers. They are still public.

This is by far the easiest column I have ever written for Rediff. In fact, it really wrote itself. I only nudged it along helpfully. Curiously, that ease I had might be a reflection of just how easy it should be for you to decide for yourself who was guilty.

How Readers reacted to Dilip D'Souza's recent columns