Mumbai Police’s Sena Block

Police officers of all ranks testified before the Srikrishna Commission inquiring into the December 92-January 93 communal riots that they did not arrest Shiv Sainiks accused of instigating and participating in communal violence, promoting communal hatred and defying police bans, because they thought the arrests would aggravate the situation. Atleast one officer said that the arrest would have led to an “escalation of communal tension” as it would have “hurt the feelings of the accused’s followers.” The accused: then Sena MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar; the officer: DCP Vasant Ingle. Asked by Justice B N Srikrishna whether hurting the feelings of the accused’s followers was the criterion normally followed when arresting offenders, DCP Ingle replied: “Not in all cases. If the person has the potential for trouble, this is a factor…It was my perception that Shri Sarpotdar had this potential for communal trouble.”

So a person who had the potential for communal trouble was allowed to roam free after leading a banned procession in which abusive communal slogans were shouted and speeches made, at a time when the city was slowly recovering from “unprecedented communal violence” (to quote the then Police Commissioner S K Bapat) and “an undercurrent of communal tension” still simmered.

As Sarpotdar himself pointed out to the Commission, some of thecity’s seniormost officers escorted this “banned” morcha, taken out in Bandra (East) on December 27, 1992. The other leaders of the morcha: Sena leaders Ashok Shinde, Jaywant Parab, Umesha Pawar.

Not arresting the accused was a collective decision taken by the Investigating Officer, the Sr PI, ACP Sukhtankar and DCP Sanjay Pande, and approved of by the then Police Commissioner. Sr PI Madhukar Zende told the Commission: “Later on, DCP Pande took the decision that, because of the circumstances then prevailing, it would not be necessary to arrest any of the said accused and he passed oral orders that the charge-sheet should be filed against them without arresting them…The arrest was deferred not because they were Hindus, but because they were connected with the Shiv Sena.” In less than a week, riots broke out again, and while they were on, the honourable MLA led three morchas to the police station. SR PI Zende agreed that “the several morchas led by Sarpotdar and (their) allegations that police wereonly arresting innocent Hindu boys did indicate to them that the arrests (of the participants) would make the situation flare up. Not using force, was also part of the tactical decision to ensure that the situation did not flare up.”

Sarpotdar was finally arrested on January 14 only after the army intercepted his vehicle during curfew hours and found him in possession of licensed and unlicensed arms (a charge of which he was acquitted last year). The arrest was for a few hours only – as anticipated, thousands of his followers blocked the highway and the night magistrate S A Merchant granted him bail (Rs 2000), agreeing that not releasing him may create tension in the city. This was when violence was at its peak in the area.

*** Another rally, another ban. Again the police escorted the “banned” rally, again abusive slogans were shouted, but no arrests made, though the Investigating Officer wrote about this rally that the “inflammatory” speeches after the rally resulted in communal riots spreadingquickly into different areas the next day. Stones were thrown at namazis from this rally held on December 6, 1992 at Dharavi to celebrate the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The organisers: Sena ex-corporators Baburao Mane and Ramakrishna Keni, and Theresa Killekar. The Srikrishna Commission report describes this rally as the very first serious communal incident in the city. The Sr PI of Dharavi, M Y Ghaghe, told the Commission, “Since the rally when it started was peaceful, any attempt to stop or arrest any of the participants might have also created problems of law and order.” Even after the rally, the organisers were not immediately arrested because “considering the tense situation prevailing at that time, their arrests might have created more trouble, and in any case, since they were known accused from the local area, we would have been in a position to arrest them at any time.”

“Any time” came long after the killings in Dharavi and the city had run their course. The 26 accused were formallyarrested after they “surrendered” to the police on March 16, 1993, a week after they had got anticipatory bail. By then, three of them had attended peace committee meetings held in the police station. Said Gharghe, “We did not arrest them, because they were the leaders of the Sena within Dharavi…I had discussed this matter with ACP Sukhtankar and he had suggested that there should be no immediate arrests, as otherwise, there would be serious repercussions creating law and order problems.” The Srikrishna Commission report states: “The government does not appear to have granted the sanction (to prosecute the accused) at all.”

In Kalachowkie, the Sena’s stronghold, Shiv Sainiks accused by the police as instigators and participants in several cases of attack on Muslims in January ’93 were arrested only in February because, said their SR PI, “soon after the riots ended the situation was still tense and immediately arresting them might have aggravated the situation.”

These were not the decisionstaken by officers on the spot. These decisions were taken at the top, even before the demolition, when tension was building up. The then chief of intelligence, Additional Commissioner of Police V N Deshmukh, told the commission that he did not think, even retrospectively, that preventive arrests of senior leaders of communal parties would have made it easier to tackle the riot situation. His senior officers and the government agreed that preventive arrests of leaders and activists of the Sena would have resulted in flaring up of unrest, because of the way Shiv Sainiks had reacted on previous occasions when such preventive arrests had been carried out. The situation in December with the undercurrent of communal tension was taken into account, and in their assessment, it would have erupted into an uncontrollable one if Sena leaders had been arrested.